Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Uber-ization of porn

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–19 of 19 posts

Re: The Uber-ization of porn

#11

Post by sandworm101 »

booruguru wrote: post #8
peteretep wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Getting paid for sex on camera is not the same as > getting paid by johns I'm curious to know what your reasoning there is...

With porn you get to choose/approve your partner based on attractiveness and compatibility. Whereas prostitution involves total strangers... and they are not really in a position where they get to say "no" (even though "technically" they can). * Is Chloe Sevingy a prostitute because she had REAL sex in the movie, The Brown Bunny? I'd say no.

Not everyone gets to choose their partners in porn. It is true that females do have some say in terms of the male stars, but this is work. Reject too many people and you will be considered difficult to work with and won't be called back.

Re: The Uber-ization of porn

#12

Post by flurie »

sandworm101 wrote: post #7
peteretep wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Getting paid for sex on camera is not the same as > getting paid by johns I'm curious to know what your reasoning there is...

(1) The former is a business transaction protected by the legal system. The later is usually a crime. (2) A transaction for sex with a john takes place in private, alone, often at night and sometimes anonymously. A porn shoot is surrounded by people, all of whom are being paid to be there. It's their work. For below: The dangers and interests of sex workers, prostitutes, are altogether different than those of porn st…

You haven't made the case for adult film actors not being sex workers. Location and information asymmetry have nothing to do with it. Illegal work isn't suddenly not work because it's illegal.

Re: The Uber-ization of porn

#13

Post by sandworm101 »

bliti wrote: post #2

I was lost trying to find the similarities of Uber and this "new" model of pornography production. IMO, for it to be the Uber of pornography, the people who want to act in the film must be able to book a "film crew" (probably someone with an iPhone or a HERO), a place to film (pick airbnb and synergize), and have the service deal with the paperwork. It would also host the film for them and provide the actors/producer…

There are a couple "sell us your sextape" websites. I was involved in a couple copyright actions against one. Free legal advice: Don't take footage of known porn star, crank down the resolution/quality, and try to pass it off as your own sextape. And if you are in the biz of buying such tapes, do some research before sending the check.

Re: The Uber-ization of porn

#14

Post by striking »

Why would the Washington Post post this? This is pretty awful by any sort of journalistic standard.

The film described sounds interesting, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Uber.

Re: The Uber-ization of porn

#15

Post by nichtich »

bliti wrote: post #2

I was lost trying to find the similarities of Uber and this "new" model of pornography production. IMO, for it to be the Uber of pornography, the people who want to act in the film must be able to book a "film crew" (probably someone with an iPhone or a HERO), a place to film (pick airbnb and synergize), and have the service deal with the paperwork. It would also host the film for them and provide the actors/producer…

Well I think the Uber-ization should be on the consumer side, not the production side. What Uber has that taxi don't is not how Uber have so much tools for the drivers to use, taxi company can do and are doing the same thing. The difference is a new way for passenger to find a ride instead of waiting on the sidewalk.

So the Uber of porn would be more like you choose from an app specifying the features of the actress/actor, scene, plot line, the "moves", and other stuff. And then the company will automatically generate a script and find the right people to shoot it for you. I'm not sure that'll work though.

Re: The Uber-ization of porn

#16

Post by nkozyra »

booruguru wrote: post #8
peteretep wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Getting paid for sex on camera is not the same as > getting paid by johns I'm curious to know what your reasoning there is...

With porn you get to choose/approve your partner based on attractiveness and compatibility. Whereas prostitution involves total strangers... and they are not really in a position where they get to say "no" (even though "technically" they can). * Is Chloe Sevingy a prostitute because she had REAL sex in the movie, The Brown Bunny? I'd say no.

"Sex worker" != prostitute

But either way, you could certainly make that argument. I think there are two problems with the analogy, one specific and one general.

1. I think the purpose of the medium defines the description of the job. Narrative art that includes sex could be construed as a different "job" than participating in sex for erotica.

2. Sevigny and Gallo were dating at the time, which complicates the notion of prostitution but not at all "sex work."

Re: The Uber-ization of porn

#17

Post by swagv »

bliti wrote: post #2

I was lost trying to find the similarities of Uber and this "new" model of pornography production. IMO, for it to be the Uber of pornography, the people who want to act in the film must be able to book a "film crew" (probably someone with an iPhone or a HERO), a place to film (pick airbnb and synergize), and have the service deal with the paperwork. It would also host the film for them and provide the actors/producer…

The word "User-ization" seems to be used most by people who don't really understand Uber.

Re: The Uber-ization of porn

#18

Post by lbaskin »

sandworm101 wrote: post #10
rifung wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People in porn get paid for having sex. Why shouldn't that be considered sex work?

Because much "porn" doesn't involve any actual sex. See Playboy. Many of these amateur webcam girls aren't even in the same room as anyone else.

And much does. Does that also not constitute sex work in your eyes?

Re: The Uber-ization of porn

#19

Post by Goladus »

striking wrote: post #14

Why would the Washington Post post this? This is pretty awful by any sort of journalistic standard. The film described sounds interesting, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Uber.

The film is OK. I watched it after my girlfriend told me about it. Most of the interesting parts are mentioned in the article. The article doesn't mention that Tressa's emergency room trip was almost certainly a consequence of all the sex. Also, while the article mentions Belle Knox, the way she comes up in the film is that Riley (the recuiter) and several of the girls are sitting around a table watching her interview and commenting. It's one of the more memorable scenes.

The film doesn't go into any greater detail about where all the money she earned went. They allude to lingerie and birth control but there's never an explicit breakdown of expenses. The film doesn't mention illicit drugs, alcohol, or any other potential money sinks.

Certainly, comparisons to Uber are ridiculous. Yes, there are similarities-- the same similarities you can draw between virtually any company using new business models enabled by new technology. I agree that the piece is terrible.

Post reply on HN