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

151–160 of 187 posts

Re: The ‘E-Pimps’ of OnlyFans

#151

Post by misiti3780 »

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.

it's not different, gumpy just thinks it's different.

Re: The ‘E-Pimps’ of OnlyFans

#152

Post by tsol »

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…

>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.

These two things are hugely different. Kids can and do regularly begin viewing porn right at puberty. There was never such easy access to sexual simulation even with prostitutes. You also cannot photoshop a real life prostitute, or browse around for the most attractive one in the world. Every additional prostitute you are with is an extra price, whereas each additional porn star is free; it naturally leads to needing huge amounts of stimulation that's incredibly hard to get in real life unless you own a harem. And even then if you're into the really hard-core stuff you'd have a hard time finding willing participants.

Porn and prostitution are totally different

Re: The ‘E-Pimps’ of OnlyFans

#153

Post by tsol »

samoa42 wrote: post #92
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.

> societal downsides become more and more apparent not sure, but in the greater picture of overpopulation, porn seems to be a cheap and effective measure compared to medical/physical alternatives.

>in the greater picture of overpopulation

Source that we are overpopulated? We can shrink the population and still pollute irresponsibly. In the past when the population was smaller we certainly managed to ruin plenty. And we aren't running out of land or food either.

Re: The ‘E-Pimps’ of OnlyFans

#154

Post by tsol »

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"…

I mean fraud is fraud even if there's "no harm done". I don't particularly care for this industry but if it exists it should be run legally

Re: The ‘E-Pimps’ of OnlyFans

#155

Post by ratww »

tsol wrote: post #154
ratww wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"…

I mean fraud is fraud even if there's "no harm done". I don't particularly care for this industry but if it exists it should be run legally

Well, that's why I said "scamming is wrong". Maybe I should revert the order of phrases, because people seem to forget I said the first sentence.

Re: The ‘E-Pimps’ of OnlyFans

#157

Post by ratww »

yifanl wrote: post #120
ratww wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"…

> On the other hand, those conversations are already so artificial and staged (and customers know it!) that it doesn't matter who has them. Do you know that for a fact? It's hard for me to understand the minds of these subscribers, but surely, if they're so invested in one particular model, of course it would matter to them.

I do know some people working in a similar line of work, Twitch "Just Chatting" streamers, where they basically sell "attention". They're not trained to do this kind of conversation, so there is a mental toll that comes with giving emotional attention to someone that's at best a stranger, unless they learn compartmentalisation. It can be very artificial, since they can be tired and not all that interested in the customers stories.

It is also hard for me to understand their mind, but I know several cases of people who claimed to have fallen in love with the streamers. Even on small channels that can be a weekly occurrence.

So yeah, it does matter for these types of buyers, and it would crush their world if they knew it was a bot, but the end result is kinda the same, because streamers/models aren't interested in them.

Re: The ‘E-Pimps’ of OnlyFans

#158

Post by ratww »

arolihas wrote: post #137
ratww wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"…

I don't think you can just say the customers know that everything is artificial and completely staged. Sometimes there are genuine parasocial relationships going on, especially with particularly vulnerable and lonely people who would pay for this. And what they're paying for is an interaction with that particular person, not someone pretending to be that person. Would you assert that the same service is being provide…

In practice, yes. It would be the same end result for both: one person not caring and the other caring too much.

But you're right: the parasocial relationship makes it different, and it is indeed fraud.

If a friend did that to me I would also get angry too. But on the other hand, I would probably figure out if a friend of mine ever does it.

Re: The ‘E-Pimps’ of OnlyFans

#159

Post by ratww »

Timshel wrote: post #146
ratww wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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" ...

It does matter to the customer of course, like I said, fraud is wrong.

But in practice it doesn't matter: even with a real chat, it's still one people getting their hopes up and another not caring and only doing it for the money.

Re: The ‘E-Pimps’ of OnlyFans

#160

Post by ratww »

simmerup wrote: post #133
ratww wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know anyone on OnlyFans, but I know a few women who do "Just Chatting" Twitch streams and the psychological toll on them is huge. Having to give people constant attention, answer every question or at least acknowledge it, and provide a sort of faux-friendship in exchange for money is a really strange arrangement. Just yesterday a long-term supporter of one woman I know "confessed their love" to her, and will…

To be fair if they’re leading people on because it gets more engagement/money they really can’t expect it to be stress free. There’s always a choice to be made.

Yes, I completely agree. Most people know that it comes with the territory.
Post reply on HN