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

Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 293 posts

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#151

Post by thebunnymaster »

orthoxerox wrote: post #94
autoexec wrote: post #22

How is this not fraud, or at least false advertising? If I'm paying money to chat with a specific sex worker how is it even legal to let some random dude in a third world country pretend to be the person I'm supposed to be talking to? I've never personally engaged in these types of systems, but I don't think there's a problem with them as long as they are run honestly. It sounds like Onlyfans is exploiting workers an…

On the one hand, yes, on the other hand, personal touch doesn't scale. Webcam models maintain a personal touch by broadcasting their interactions with those who tip, but OF models can't do that. They have two options when their customer base grows too large: Option one is to use these chatters. Option two is to chat only with those who pay extra or with no one at all.

[dead]

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#152

Post by dan-robertson »

chrononaut wrote: post #85

As an aside: > OnlyFans, which generated $7.2bn (£5.3bn) revenue in 2024, .. I didn't expect their revenue to be that high, but I suppose it's also unsurprising.

This and companies like paddy power are the breakout British business successes of the last few decades

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#153

Post by sneak »

sequoia wrote: post #134
sneak wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sex work is work. They’re not being coerced. There’s no more or less dignity to it than being a waitress or checkout clerk. It’s no more or less disgusting than being a hospice nurse or a garbage collector. It’s just a job. Jobs are not inherently fraudulent, however. A deal is a deal, and this is plainly fraud. It is unfair to the purchaser, and it is not unfair to the people who voluntarily accept these jobs (when…

> There’s no more or less dignity to it than being a waitress or checkout clerk. Do you imagine this is how the workers feel about it? Do you think they tell their friends "I seduce western men online for pennies an hour" the same way they'd say "I am a waitress?" You can ignore this fact if you wish, but these jobs carry a social stigma and most people would prefer not to role play intimacy with men online if there…

“pennies an hour” sidesteps the fact that $2-3/hr is a fairly decent wage in the Philippines.

The average hourly wage is $2.11 and the minimum wage is $1.36 per hour. It is likely easier work and better pay than being a waitress.

Voluntary, harmless sex work such as that described in TFA has no relation whatsoever to slavery. Your crusade is out of place in this thread, I believe. Most working class jobs are unpleasant, and being a sex chat operator is probably one of the safest jobs one could have in the world. You seem to be intentionally conflating the topic at hand with unregulated street prostitution.

> most people would prefer not to role play intimacy with men online if there were another option.

What does that have to do with the people who DO do these jobs? They plainly have other options and they work as sex chat operators by choice.

TFA intentionally frames their wages as exploitative when they are median for the locale and substantially above minimum wage there.

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#154

Post by zarzavat »

SoftTalker wrote: post #65
autoexec wrote: post #22

How is this not fraud, or at least false advertising? If I'm paying money to chat with a specific sex worker how is it even legal to let some random dude in a third world country pretend to be the person I'm supposed to be talking to? I've never personally engaged in these types of systems, but I don't think there's a problem with them as long as they are run honestly. It sounds like Onlyfans is exploiting workers an…

It's no more fraud than any other "fan club" where you got letters and personal autographs and such from the celebrity but didn't realize it was all done by a hired staff of employees. It's been a thing for decades.

You mean it's equally fraud as that. Fraud has a particular definition which does not permit "someone else is committing fraud and getting away with it" as a defense.

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#155

Post by elorant »

autoexec wrote: post #22

How is this not fraud, or at least false advertising? If I'm paying money to chat with a specific sex worker how is it even legal to let some random dude in a third world country pretend to be the person I'm supposed to be talking to? I've never personally engaged in these types of systems, but I don't think there's a problem with them as long as they are run honestly. It sounds like Onlyfans is exploiting workers an…

You’re not paying to chat. This isn’t therapy. You’re paying to see content and the chat is supposed to be complementary for support reasons.

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#156

Post by hermitcrab »

sneak wrote: post #105
sequoia wrote: post #96

I find it sad that there's a story of people (mostly women) doing this disgusting job for little pay (yes, chatting up horny men online because you need the money is disgusting, there's no glamour and little dignity to it), and the top comment is how this is unfair to the john (purchaser of sex work) because it's misleading.

Sex work is work. They’re not being coerced. There’s no more or less dignity to it than being a waitress or checkout clerk. It’s no more or less disgusting than being a hospice nurse or a garbage collector. It’s just a job. Jobs are not inherently fraudulent, however. A deal is a deal, and this is plainly fraud. It is unfair to the purchaser, and it is not unfair to the people who voluntarily accept these jobs (when…

It is rather sad that a job they hate, that only pays ~$2/hour, is apparently the best option they have.

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#157

Post by tclancy »

bawolff wrote: post #30

> She would be set targets to earn the model hundreds of dollars worth of sales of pictures and videos during her shift. So lets assume $300 per shift, so with an 8 hour shift, that would be about $37.50/hour of merchandise per hour. So the workers makes about 5.3%. Google says standard for sales workers paid on comission normally get 5-10%. So its possible this is within what would be normal for a low end non-salary…

Why? Why do the math on someone else’s misery? What is the best case scenario you could have ended with?

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#158

Post by abeppu »

gruez wrote: post #69
iugtmkbdfil834 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But then.. how is it any different from Amazon saying automated stores while a human is watching cameras or waymo having humans operate in some circumstances. If there are no rules, you can't expect corporates to govern themselves in a way that does not benefit them..

>But then.. how is it any different from Amazon saying automated stores while a human is watching cameras or waymo having humans operate in some circumstances. Did amazon/waymo actually claim they were 100% automated? Moreover is the fact that they're 100% automated a material fact to the consumer? The investors might have grounds to sue for securities fraud, but it's going to be much tougher for a consumer, when for…

> Moreover is the fact that they're 100% automated a material fact to the consumer?

I do think that for a meaningful fraction of first time customers, the choice to try it is about the novelty of it being automated. In SF I do often see people explaining waymo to out of town visitors, and the uniqueness of "driverless" vs "remote controlled" is part of the appeal.

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#159

Post by LogicFailsMe »

zarzavat wrote: post #154
SoftTalker wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's no more fraud than any other "fan club" where you got letters and personal autographs and such from the celebrity but didn't realize it was all done by a hired staff of employees. It's been a thing for decades.

You mean it's equally fraud as that. Fraud has a particular definition which does not permit "someone else is committing fraud and getting away with it" as a defense.

Not to mention politicians begging for money and in return you get begged for more money by more politicians.

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#160

Post by PUSH_AX »

boxedemp wrote: post #146
PUSH_AX wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not what they paid for, they paid to speak to person x, not person y.

They paid to interact with a computer, and they did. On the Internet nobody knows I'm a dog, and that's ok.

This is not what is advertised, and if it was there would be no money in it.
Post reply on HN