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

141–150 of 187 posts

Re: The ‘E-Pimps’ of OnlyFans

#141

Post by Timshel »

aqme28 wrote: post #86
Timshel wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>and expecting a random woman to shower you with attention for $50 a pop videos seems unrealistic. So then what it's ok to take advantage and scam them ??? WTF ...

What scam? These are all upfront deals. Content is actually delivered.

From https://onlyfans.com/about.html Mission : "The site is inclusive of artists and content creators from all genres and allows them to monetize their content while developing authentic relationships with their fanbase".

Apparently we define "authentic relationship" differently. I think it's quite explicit in the article that the targets do not want just "content" ...

I would expect the business to be less profitable if the representant were to identify themself even with just an alias, no ?

Re: The ‘E-Pimps’ of OnlyFans

#142

Post by namelessoracle »

karamanolev wrote: post #87
codebolt wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot can change over a decades time. I hope and believe that porn will eventually be a lot more restricted than it is today, as the societal downsides become more and more apparent.

While ubiquitous access porn is relatively new (I think) with printed magazines and now the internet, one still has a great reference from something much older - prostitution. One might conjecture that if society hasn't determined prostitution to be universally bad and banning it everywhere, then the same thing wouldn't happen to porn. A lot of progressive nations these days (citation needed) are aiming to regulate a…

Society DID recognize it caused problems and basically banned it everywhere (or at least made it frowned upon).

It's starting to look like removing some of the sexual morals that societies had used for hundreds of years is a classic Chesterton's fence style problem. Progressives didn't understand the good effects of some puritan policies and decided to throw it all out because it got in the way of them feeling good right now.

Re: The ‘E-Pimps’ of OnlyFans

#143

Post by golergka »

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…

> The place for real unethical behavior, therefore, is on the margins: Taking unreasonable cuts of models' income (70%!).

It's an open market without anything even remotely resembling a monopoly, where all parties involved are professional and can relatively easy exit a contract they find unfair.

Re: The ‘E-Pimps’ of OnlyFans

#144

Post by samoa42 »

progrus wrote: post #119
samoa42 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

wouldn't call it genocide because it is not a selective measure. but yea, "preventing births" does qualify

I meant to say that the phrase “medical/physical alternatives” in the context you used it, means genocide.

as i tried to explain: it does not

Re: The ‘E-Pimps’ of OnlyFans

#145

Post by hansel_der »

mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote: post #99
hansel_der wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

quite sure you're overthinking it. a picture of some random dick does not qualify as blackmail material.

Nude pictures don't qualify as blackmail material? Clearly they do, to some people, as there are numerous cases of nudes being used for extortion. I doesn't seem far fetched that there could be a significant overlap between men who have enough insecurity about themselves to pay for the service, and men who would be amenable to blackmail using said photos. Besides, it's not just the photo. Likely other things were sha…

sure, the fact that someone was/is using the service can be used, but requires additional identification.

imo a "dick pic" is just that, a picture of male genitalia whereas a "nude" is usually a picture of a naked person (i.e. identifiable)

Re: The ‘E-Pimps’ of OnlyFans

#146

Post by Timshel »

ratww wrote: post #115
maxerickson wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"impersonating the women in conversations with their subscribers" Is the idea that since the subscribers should know that it isn't the model that it doesn't matter that it isn't the model?

That's a bit of a strange situation. I can't get angry about something like this. On one hand, sure, the customer paid to talk to a specific model, and sure, scamming is wrong. On the other hand, those conversations are already so artificial and staged (and customers know it!) that it doesn't matter who has them. A service is definitely being provided, no harm done, just like "sending a post asking for an autograph"…

If it doesn't matter why not make it visible ?

Instead of : "The only time he ever has to ask the couple for anything is when a subscriber refuses to pay for content without receiving video confirmation that he’s really talking to Dani" ...

Re: The ‘E-Pimps’ of OnlyFans

#147

Post by usrn »

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…

No post body was provided.

Re: The ‘E-Pimps’ of OnlyFans

#149

Post by hellohowareu »

I've met someone who claims to make about $600k USD per year by managing the chats of mid-level OnlyFans women. He got his start in Los Angeles, California, where he began to realize the need for his service in the marketplace.

He simply chats all day to lonely men, pretending to be women, so the women don't have to.

Re: The ‘E-Pimps’ of OnlyFans

#150

Post by bko »

Kinrany wrote: post #70
abigail95 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Price discrimination is only good as long as rich people are paying more. But rich people are on average better at knowing how to pay less.

> But rich people are on average better at knowing how to pay less.

Ah, so it's the rich people driving all those sensible cars with the exact practical functionality as the higher end models

Post reply on HN