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

The ‘E-Pimps’ of OnlyFans

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 187 posts

Re: The ‘E-Pimps’ of OnlyFans

#41

Post by abigail95 »

ivraatiems wrote: post #23

I have a lot of trouble begrudging anybody anything in this, even though I don't like it. The models who own the pages can't possibly give everyone in their subscriber base what they want. The subscribers are looking for a product, and they're getting it. The comparisons some have made to infidelity or cheating seem misplaced: There's no real relationship here, except a business relationship, and expecting a random w…

> Negotiating different rates with different subscribers for the same video

price discrimination is good!

For the rest of it, banning porn is probably a losing battle, but surely we can make fraud illegal, like passing yourself off as someone else.

For the rest of the what-ifs, do nothing, or call the police. I don't think pornographers should have a special duty to act over a shopkeeper or bus driver.

Re: The ‘E-Pimps’ of OnlyFans

#42

Post by cookingrobot »

thorum wrote: post #20
MontyCarloHall wrote: post #4

These “pimps” serve as surrogates for the cammer, (consensually) impersonating them so that the cammer’s account can engage with more subscribers. I wonder how convincing something like GPT-3 would be at this. I give it 5 years tops for 100% AI OnlyFans accounts to be commonplace, complete with artificial personalized livestreams.

The problem with GPT-3 is it’s too agreeable. It will agree to anything and promise anything - which is not a good idea in this context, to put it mildly.

It’s possible to prime it to take different personas.

If you start with a setup like “a conservation with a disagreeable chatbot” and give an example of some unfriendly back and forth it can pick it up and be unfriendly.

The recent case of the “sentient bot” at Google was apparently primed to be agreeable.

Re: The ‘E-Pimps’ of OnlyFans

#43

Post by abigail95 »

harmon wrote: post #8
Overtonwindow wrote: post #6

I wonder if people realize that they are communicating with the new version of a phone sex line. It seems a little dishonest. Before the Internet, people could call the sex lines and talk to people, and it was your imagination. With the Internet, and only fans, all of the media, it seems disingenuous and a little bit like a scam.

Ultimately if users are satisfied and happy, does it even matter if it is fake? The end goal is not to create a real relationship, it is to create a happy fantasy for the buyer.

It's wire fraud. Fake relationship scammers have been charged with it before.

You can't lie to people to get money out of them.

Re: The ‘E-Pimps’ of OnlyFans

#44

Post by bergenty »

throwfaraway9 wrote: post #37
gumby wrote: post #29

> Many are based in Miami. It’s a place where young marketing types have embraced a vision of what the internet is actually for that is at odds with Silicon Valley’s: less a utopian escape from reality than an infinite expansion of its strip malls. I am glad there is a honeypot for people like this so they won't move here (SV or even SF)

Quoted post unavailable.

You must not walk around the Bay Area much. Literally everyone out in public is fit, especially compared to the south or the Midwest.

Re: The ‘E-Pimps’ of OnlyFans

#45

Post by otterley »

hnov wrote: post #33
gumby wrote: post #29

> Many are based in Miami. It’s a place where young marketing types have embraced a vision of what the internet is actually for that is at odds with Silicon Valley’s: less a utopian escape from reality than an infinite expansion of its strip malls. I am glad there is a honeypot for people like this so they won't move here (SV or even SF)

Aversion to sex work aside, how’s this different than some of what’s done in Silicon Valley? Uber will happily extract the remaining equity in your car as you teeter on the brink of homelessness at which point DoorDash will be happy to make you your own boss. Maybe I’m just jaded because it’s hard to find a place to rent wherever there’s a booming market for Airbnb rentals.

If you haven’t lived in either place, it’s difficult to understand. Capitalism abounds in both, but is expressed in very different ways in each place. The cultures are just wildly different. As a native Californian, I find Florida’s culture to be smarmy and tasteless, with people shamelessly flaunting designer labels and consuming conspicuously. Being seen is super important to a lot of Floridians. (It also goes a long way to explain why Donald Trump enjoys living there; he fits right in.)

Southern California (as influenced by Hollywood) has a bit of this problem too, but it’s far less acute by my observation.

Re: The ‘E-Pimps’ of OnlyFans

#46

Post by bergenty »

garyfirestorm wrote: post #19
jazzyjackson wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

edit: comment below me has the youtube link, "nudes4sale" by the bbc

What vpn works with this? Neither Mozilla nor mullvad could trick the bbc iplayer

You could try a few different locations in the UK. They don’t usually get all of them.

Re: The ‘E-Pimps’ of OnlyFans

#47

Post by bergenty »

Overtonwindow wrote: post #6

I wonder if people realize that they are communicating with the new version of a phone sex line. It seems a little dishonest. Before the Internet, people could call the sex lines and talk to people, and it was your imagination. With the Internet, and only fans, all of the media, it seems disingenuous and a little bit like a scam.

I never understood the phone sex pull. It’s just a voice you can’t see anything and the person on the other end could be hideous.

Re: The ‘E-Pimps’ of OnlyFans

#48

Post by ec109685 »

bawolff wrote: post #36
ec109685 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are satisfied because they think they have this connection with a real women, not a guy from an English speaking lower cost country.

If they think they have a real relationship with the real woman behind the camera, they are as delusional as the people who tweet at celebrities and think they have a real relationship with them.

Can’t help but think of the guys writing this behind the scenes:

“It may take me a couple of days to really grasp using this platform and answering all my messages but I will get back to each of you! I will also be taking photos to share on the wall for free with some PPVs over the next couple of days. It is ONLY ME on here, so , I'd love some suggestions! PS; I'd like to also know what time is best to come on and not miss you... also, going to try and do some live streams when I get it all figured out!" Richards wrote.

Source: https://people.com/style/denise-richards-flag-bikini-fourth-...

From the e-pimp article:

“You see how there’s a space before the exclamation mark?” he said. “Yeah, that’s how 18-year-olds type.” When it comes to sales, Rosero said, those details make all the difference.

…

“An older lady won’t use emojis; she’ll use, like, a semicolon and parentheses for a winky face, when a younger girl will actually use a winky emoji.”

Re: The ‘E-Pimps’ of OnlyFans

#49

Post by claytongulick »

noisy_boy wrote: post #27

Middle men have been around since the middle ages - wherever there is an opportunity to insert themselves, they will do that.

There's a fun word that means (paraphrasing) "removing the middlemen from things"

Disintermediation [1]

I use it all the time when I'm trying to sound smart to business folks.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disintermediation

Re: The ‘E-Pimps’ of OnlyFans

#50

Post by yieldcrv »

> Money from subscriptions can be trivial compared with the profits earned by selling custom videos, sexting sessions and other forms of fan interaction that require more concerted engagement than simply posting to a feed.

In fact many subscriptions are free.

When I listen to people make OnlyFans the butt of a joke or otherwise deride its existence or of people “paying for porn, whyyyy”, it really neglects how that platform works and the marketing funnel. and that many people subscribing are not paying to consume content.

It neglects that a large percentage of the revenue is from other content creators supporting each other, or using a subscription to advertise on a more popular person’s page in their comments.

I’m fine normalizing discussions about both the supply side, where meeting someone attractive in person can easily result in a casual and unoffensive discussion about or introduction to their onlyfans, because its quite common.

and I’m fine normalizing discussion about the demand side, where we don't have to pretend its just “maladjusted men that we don't know”, compared to a distribution of everyone.

Post reply on HN