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

Under the skin of OnlyFans

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 615 posts

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#261

Post by chongli »

topicseed wrote: post #191
stevoski wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know more about the online poker industry than I wish I did. This “whale” phenomenon describes exactly why online poker is so profitable for the site operators. The profits don’t come from the masses of people cautiously playing on micro stakes tables, but the whales, who will give the poker rooms thousands each month in rake.

Do poker site operators not entice whales by offering rakeback deals and special discounts? Poker is weird because the largest chunks of all monies go from one player to the other. But I assume rakes, at higher stakes, do add up really quickly...

They certainly do. They use loyalty clubs, rakeback deals, reward points (essentially a form of rakebak with lock in), comps, tournaments, and everything else you can think of to keep the whales engaged.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#262

Post by polote »

teekert wrote: post #234

They use the word "hacked", but I wonder if it is just "guessed" a simple password and failure to set mfa. Don't get me wrong, I despise the people that even try to guess the password, but calling it "hacking" is a missed opportunity to inform people about the dangers of simple passwords and single factor authentication. Again, not saying it wasn't "hacking" in this case. Or maybe I have the wrong definition of hacki…

> but I wonder if it is just "guessed" a simple password and failure to set mfa.

She say, they kept stealing her password, so it was probably that the hacker had access to her email then he was able to keep changing the OF password

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#263

Post by Shoue »

curiousgal wrote: post #119
SilverRed wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you considered the alternative that this is not an evil which you are unable to control but just another way of living / thinking of sexual content? There is nothing inherently evil about this stuff so why is it terrible that it is becoming more accepted/common? If in 30 years we live in a society where people post nudes like they do facebook posts, is there anything wrong about this? Could you describe the harm…

I totally disagree. We've all been teenagers. The content creators posting their OF on TikTok are purposefully targeting teenagers with access to mommy's credit card. I see it a s purely evil and predatory.

In what world do teenagers not just figure out a way to obtain content like this for free on the Internet instead of risking mommy and daddy finding out they watch porn when they check their statement? Like, I get an immediate notification on my phone when a purchase is made, online or offline. The risk is so high I feel like you're inventing a situation so rare it's not worth mentioning.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#264

Post by draw_down »

[deleted] wrote: post #253
650REDHAIR wrote: post #20

So our kids are getting older so I've been paying more attention to popular social networks and it's wild how many YouTubers, Twitch'ers, TikTok'ers, Instagram'ers have OF content directly linked from their non-porn bios. I don't like it, but I'm not sure what a good solution is. I mean, people are free to do what they'd like, but it's hard to police screen time 100% of the time and their peer group has a lot more ac…

[deleted]

Good luck with that my friend!

And don’t let me catch you touting the first amendment in the meantime.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#265

Post by watwut »

AKSucks wrote: post #226
ayngg wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think in general there are some pretty big costs that aren't fully understood to doing sex work, even outside of the social stigma of being found out by your friends and family, there are mental health costs that are often not talked about. A lot of sex workers overtly reinforce social behaviors towards women (sexualization and objectification among other things) in order to appeal to men, which hurts them in the l…

Can we please not use the term "sex worker" for people who do not face the vast majority of risks (health/physical, financial, legal-of-the-criminal-sort, and emotional) that someone who actually engages in sex with other people for money does? You (generally speaking) cannot get infected with STIs, pregnant, assaulted, raped, drugged, stabbed, murdered, convicted, jailed - for being a camgirl. You (generally speakin…

The term sex worker always included porn workers?

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#266

Post by GuB-42 »

AKSucks wrote: post #226
ayngg wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think in general there are some pretty big costs that aren't fully understood to doing sex work, even outside of the social stigma of being found out by your friends and family, there are mental health costs that are often not talked about. A lot of sex workers overtly reinforce social behaviors towards women (sexualization and objectification among other things) in order to appeal to men, which hurts them in the l…

Can we please not use the term "sex worker" for people who do not face the vast majority of risks (health/physical, financial, legal-of-the-criminal-sort, and emotional) that someone who actually engages in sex with other people for money does? You (generally speaking) cannot get infected with STIs, pregnant, assaulted, raped, drugged, stabbed, murdered, convicted, jailed - for being a camgirl. You (generally speakin…

There is no clear definition of a sex worker, but usually, it includes more than prostitution.

Here is from Wikipedia:

> Not to be confused with prostitution. Sex work is "the exchange of sexual services, performances, or products for material compensation.[1][2] It includes activities of direct physical contact between buyers and sellers as well as indirect sexual stimulation".[3]

Here is from Merriam-Webster:

> a person whose work involves sexually explicit behavior

Here is from Oxford Reference:

> Is paid employment in the sex industry, comprising prostitution and pornography

So by these definitions, camgirls are sex workers.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#267

Post by watwut »

belorn wrote: post #211
sebmellen wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then the cycle of stigmatization begins again… Almost as if there is a purpose to it. Is stigmatization always an objectively bad thing? I suppose it depends on your frame of reference. I don’t think any person should be stigmatized for what they do, but certain activities may well deserve it. I suppose that’s also a recurrent theme in the New Testament. One thing I think ought to be stigmatized more is video gam…

Every thing that is used by the lower class to escape reality get stigmatized, and the more effective it is the more problematic society view it. The decline in alcohol addictions is often attributed to gaming, particularly among men. I also personally prefer people who are addicted to games over those addicted to alcohol, and long term it is much safer for everyone involved.

> The decline in alcohol addictions is often attributed to gaming, particularly among men.

I have never seen this. Like, this is literally first time I see this attribution being made.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#268

Post by scrollaway »

andreareina wrote: post #202
quenix wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neat! This does seem algebraically coherent. Unfortunately, it just doesn't make intuitive sense to my lizard brain. Cool trick anyway, thanks for clearing it up!

It's the heart of the difference between the two statements: - The average streamer makes $x - Streamers make an average of $y

Very beautifully and succinctly summarized. :)

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#269

Post by JohnWhigham »

Bayart wrote: post #190

Who knew a site which thrives on abolishing all personal boundaries in digital prostitution would have problems. You can't expect customers to be courteous and professional with you if the product is sex, all the more so if you're leveraging the illusion of a social relationship. It's a one or the other proposition. There's no in-between, there's no picking both. The entire thing is schizophrenic.

This is what happens when there's no limits to anything. When nothing is sacred, and everything can be commoditized. This narrative is literally ripped right out of Brave New World.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#270

Post by watwut »

pcbro141 wrote: post #58
throwmeawaydddy wrote: post #33

Fire up the throwaway! Not 100% related to the article, but directly related. I worked as developer for a product in the same niche ("democratizing adult content"). I spent almost 2 years working on the frontend, devops, and building out the analytics engine (all pre-covid). Anyway, on to the comment at hand. We had a small number of users compared to OnlyFans (when I left, there were about 20K active content creator…

Not surprised. I would just assume eventually some sexually frustrated person would try to doxx you at some point. I think there are even organized groups dedicated to doing just that. Sexually frustrated/not getting laid + seeing women making money off their sexuality ('unfair') makes some of these people incredibly angry.

Was there some study that confirms they are sexually frustrated or is that only assumption? (People tend to assume sexual frustration where sometimes is person with normal sex life, actually.)
Post reply on HN