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

11–20 of 615 posts

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#11

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

recn14b wrote: post #5
girvo wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love for you to expand on that opinion. In some ways I think it's a good product that gives some measure of control (and a _lot_ of the money) back to the people who star in and create pornographic content. The existing industry is exploitative and predatory, and from my admittedly not-very-well-versed vantage point, OnlyFans is much less so due to the very nature of its product and who its content creators are.

> OnlyFans is much less so due to the very nature of its product and who its content creators are. This is an extremely generous view. It's well known that cam sites often feature trafficked victims. Why wouldn't you also assume that an OnlyFans is also run by a trafficker? You cited yourself that the industry is predatory and exploitative. Do you honestly believe that most of these woman truly made this choice thems…

I can't speak for the person you're responding to, but I don't think an assumption of human trafficking by the site's owners is supported given that some other site's owners did human trafficking. By all accounts I've been exposed to, models on OnlyFans earn much better than models on other sites. That seems like a prima facie reason to believe it's overall a good thing, and the evidence would need to be presented to demonstrate otherwise. Starting with the assumption the owner of something you don't like is a human trafficker is not a good way to make a convincing case against OnlyFans.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#14

Post by vmception »

recn14b wrote: post #5
girvo wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love for you to expand on that opinion. In some ways I think it's a good product that gives some measure of control (and a _lot_ of the money) back to the people who star in and create pornographic content. The existing industry is exploitative and predatory, and from my admittedly not-very-well-versed vantage point, OnlyFans is much less so due to the very nature of its product and who its content creators are.

> OnlyFans is much less so due to the very nature of its product and who its content creators are. This is an extremely generous view. It's well known that cam sites often feature trafficked victims. Why wouldn't you also assume that an OnlyFans is also run by a trafficker? You cited yourself that the industry is predatory and exploitative. Do you honestly believe that most of these woman truly made this choice thems…

Earn, (which was acquired by Coinbase and shutdown/rebranded), did the same thing as OnlyFans, charging for direct messages. There are many services like that. Many content producers on OnlyFans switch away from subscription model to just freemium with paid direct messages.

It is unnecessarily gendered to treat OnlyFans differently just because the many content creators on OnlyFans are women leading with their bodies. Maybe you weren't aware of other services that let people charge for DMs that simply didn't get associated with adult content, maybe that's not what you meant, but the comment you replied to said the OnlyFans platform is less about the nature of its product and more about who its content creators are, which you seemed to disagree with but then replied with a completely different comment.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#15

Post by lxmorj »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #11
recn14b wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> OnlyFans is much less so due to the very nature of its product and who its content creators are. This is an extremely generous view. It's well known that cam sites often feature trafficked victims. Why wouldn't you also assume that an OnlyFans is also run by a trafficker? You cited yourself that the industry is predatory and exploitative. Do you honestly believe that most of these woman truly made this choice thems…

I can't speak for the person you're responding to, but I don't think an assumption of human trafficking by the site's owners is supported given that some other site's owners did human trafficking. By all accounts I've been exposed to, models on OnlyFans earn much better than models on other sites. That seems like a prima facie reason to believe it's overall a good thing, and the evidence would need to be presented to…

I believe he is not saying the site owners are traffickers but that some OF channels could be trafficker run.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#16

Post by ipnon »

cunthorpe wrote: post #10

I think that people need to understand that once they put themselves out there, especially in sex-fueled environments, they’re adding risk to their lives. They put their sex on full display and think “yeah this is totally fine” while it obviously carries some huge societal weight. I’m not justifying their actions, but also don’t be surprised when they happen. The world isn’t perfect yet. I don’t care much about OF, b…

We have a "women and children first" reflex. We seem to draw extraordinary attention to the troubles of beautiful, young women. Call it "damsel in distress."

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#17

Post by chii »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #7
girvo wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love for you to expand on that opinion. In some ways I think it's a good product that gives some measure of control (and a _lot_ of the money) back to the people who star in and create pornographic content. The existing industry is exploitative and predatory, and from my admittedly not-very-well-versed vantage point, OnlyFans is much less so due to the very nature of its product and who its content creators are.

Not OP, but IMO onlyfans is especially predatory because it makes it look easy to trade nudes for large amounts of cash. In reality very few people are going to be making above minimum wage, onlyfans is just like the rest of social media - a lottery that pays millions to a few winners and asks all the other participants to create content for next-to-nothing just to enter the lotto.

> onlyfans is especially predatory

if this is what you call predatory, then why isn't sports stars and film/music celebrity culture not predatory in the same way? I don't see the difference.

I say let people do what they want, as long as they understand what they're doing and is informed of the (potential) consequences.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#18

Post by vmception »

superkuh wrote: post #4

The BBC is really digging deep and far away from OnlyFans itself in order to try to generate the moral outrage needed to justify their puritan anti-porn stance. Most of this article seems to be about things that happen outside of the website or instances where users violated the terms of service.

The summary, I think, is that they should list calls to action for OnlyFans, or point out that the biggest tech giants are struggling with the same issues on their own platforms, ie. hackers, stalkers, 2-factor authentication, lack of live chat for support.

BBC could have done a bit more to summarize calls to action instead of helping readers conflate multiple issues with preexisting biases. It is also a pretty decent reality for what creators can expect, right now. But, despite that I felt it was decently balanced. They accurately say the site has associations and can be used for other things.

Just saying Youtube, Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram and others have the same issues would have been useful.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#19

Post by duxup »

superkuh wrote: post #4

The BBC is really digging deep and far away from OnlyFans itself in order to try to generate the moral outrage needed to justify their puritan anti-porn stance. Most of this article seems to be about things that happen outside of the website or instances where users violated the terms of service.

Is it "moral outrage" if they asked why a creator's account was closed and it was reopened?

This article seemed to be about a number of issues, not so much about the content.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#20

Post by 650REDHAIR »

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 access than they do so even if I can block it 100$ they'll be exposed to it somewhere else. We've talked about it and I feel like that's all I can do now. I just hate how normalized it feels when many of their social media "role models' turn to porn.

Post reply on HN