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

161–170 of 187 posts

Re: The ‘E-Pimps’ of OnlyFans

#161

Post by bobkazamakis »

usrn wrote: post #147
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…

Quoted post unavailable.

>Kind of like weed makes you mentally weak

ah, I too love to speak about things I'm not familiar with in a way that demands any authority.

>Porn isn't necessarily just wrong because of the abuse of individuals

Famously, porn is only abusive and we must clutch our pearls to rid us of these earthly sins.

Re: The ‘E-Pimps’ of OnlyFans

#162

Post by tsol »

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.

Yeah but people are free to be delusional if they want to, doesn't make it legal to scam them

Re: The ‘E-Pimps’ of OnlyFans

#163

Post by mrguyorama »

Jaruzel wrote: post #131
sp1rit wrote: post #74

> "You see how there’s a space before the exclamation mark?" he said. "Yeah, that’s how 18-year-olds type." I have never seen any 18-year-old type like this. Is this actually common in the US or just a thing of older folk imaging how an 18 -year-old might type?

I picked up on this... My initial thought was, typing on a phone, and tapping the auto-complete for the word 'daddy' would automatically insert a space afterwards. It's quicker/easier to just live with the space, than delete it before typing the '!'.

Autocomplete on my phone (android) is smart enough to silently delete the space if the next character is punctuation.

Re: The ‘E-Pimps’ of OnlyFans

#164

Post by harpersealtako »

sofixa wrote: post #128
asdff wrote: post #53

Screw paying a cut to the chatters or even the models for that matter. This entire business model can be automated with a chatbot and a deepfake engine.

I see you haven't used any chatbots. They are generally useless.

GPT-adjacent text prediction AIs are already mostly used for this to great effect. AI Dungeon was mostly used to generate erotica. Its successors like NovelAI and Sudowrite are also used mostly for this. The "chatbot" label isn't imaginative enough, because people use them for everything from autogenerated personalized fiction to simulated chat logs.

Re: The ‘E-Pimps’ of OnlyFans

#165

Post by bohadi »

belval wrote: post #139
ivraatiems wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's already happening: https://www.reddit.com/r/replika/

This is actually very interesting, so a company is offering a "teach your own AI" thing so that you can build a "relationship" with it? That's some blade runner/cyberpunk/black mirror stuff if I have ever seen some.

.The first turing ai's will wage war and sell sex

Re: The ‘E-Pimps’ of OnlyFans

#166

Post by prvc »

prvc wrote: post #59

Interesting that models of only moderate attractiveness are in the highest demand due to creating a perception of "attainability". The connectivity of the internet makes them, de-facto, the most desired.

It makes them de-facto unattainable, additionally, I should have said.

Re: The ‘E-Pimps’ of OnlyFans

#167

Post by bawolff »

tsol wrote: post #162
bawolff wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah but people are free to be delusional if they want to, doesn't make it legal to scam them

Is it really even a scam? They are hiring someone to pretend to be interested in them, and they are getting someone pretending to be interested in them. If they can't effectively distinguish between the two, where is the scam? Where is the bait and switch?

Re: The ‘E-Pimps’ of OnlyFans

#168

Post by pas »

namelessoracle wrote: post #142
karamanolev wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 r…

Sure there was some utility gained from those rules, but then we looked at them and the cost-benefit analysis is pretty clearly against them.

Limiting personal freedoms to satisfy old religious beliefs (some of which used to serve useful purposes) makes very little sense nowadays, especially that we have much much much better ways to get much better outcomes with regards to those purposes. (Eg. avoiding genetic defects due to incest, keeping communities growing to have enough people to replace those who are lost due to famines, disease, war, accidents.)

Re: The ‘E-Pimps’ of OnlyFans

#169

Post by SergeAx »

elil17 wrote: post #122
e63f67dd-065b wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think 70% is unreasonably high for a fully-featured agency doing everything from marketing, management, etc. The value-add in this industry is not the model - there are plenty of beautiful women willing to take nudes in the world. The hard part is actually finding and extracting money from paying customers - cross-promoting with other models, spamming a million posts on every nsfw subreddit, having a human ca…

It seems like the chatters, not the models, who aren’t getting a fair cut.

Chatters are even more expendable. They don't even have to have a looks, only reasonably decent typing/writing skill. I wonder what it will take to replace them with GPTish ML model?

Re: The ‘E-Pimps’ of OnlyFans

#170

Post by kar5pt »

codebolt wrote: post #80
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.

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.

These "downsides" are mostly the pseudo-scientific imaginings of feminists and redpill conservatives. There's very little evidence that porn harms anyone so long as it features consenting adults - despite internet forums incessantly repeating the opposite. It's a classic case of people believing something because they heard it repeated over and over.
Post reply on HN