Under the skin of OnlyFans • Hacker News Board

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#161

Post by 9530jh9054ven » Tue, Jul 20, 2021, 7:49 AM UTC

ehnto wrote: post #77

brundolf wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can testify that I went through a lonely period a few years ago, and stumbled upon Twitch, and was immediately weirded out by how much of an effect it had on my emotions. It felt like I could point and click and immediately have the experience of hanging out with someone, belonging, having something that felt anchoring, without making any of the hard social effort that's always been a challenge for me. I couldn't p…

One issue with streaming/youtubers in particular is that you can get all of that fun-social-fuzzy feeling without actually participating and forming a real connection, it's different to other online communities in that way. Unless you dive deep into their community you don't actually know the streamers and they don't know you. You come out the other-side of a binge with nothing. If you've got a robust social network…

>If you've got a robust social network then it's not all that harmful, and if you don't then it's at least something, but you can trick yourself into thinking that something is enough when really it can be quite a shallow and ephemeral social experience.

Doesn't that also apply to any kind of interactions though? Every single group I've ever participated with in my entire life has always been shallow and ephemeral. Especially the in person interactions.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#162

Post by EvilEy3 » Tue, Jul 20, 2021, 7:51 AM UTC

aniforprez wrote: post #75

throwawayboise wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We used to say, "play stupid games, win stupid prizes."

Seems a bit harsh to call it "stupid". Sex work is work that will always have demand. It sucks that society looks down on it and the market for it is so skewed towards creeps that people feel unsafe doing it and face so much harassment when found out

> Sex work is work that will always have demand

Sure, doesn't make it a good or socially acceptable job though.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#163

Post by dspillett » Tue, Jul 20, 2021, 7:52 AM UTC

brazzy wrote: post #117

ayngg wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think in general there are some pretty big costs that aren't fully understood to doing sex work, even outside of the social stigma of being found out by your friends and family, there are mental health costs that are often not talked about. A lot of sex workers overtly reinforce social behaviors towards women (sexualization and objectification among other things) in order to appeal to men, which hurts them in the l…

> A lot of sex workers overtly reinforce social behaviors towards women (sexualization and objectification among other things) in order to appeal to men, which hurts them in the long run. This is something that's really been bugging me when looking at Reddit's porn subs. There has been a really noticeable change in the last 2 years. Back then, a majority of the posters seemed to actually be amateurs getting their kic…

> Now it's 99% OnlyFans advertising. I guess that professionalization was bound to happen.

It was, but the last couple of years have accelerated the process significantly beyond where it would otherwise have moved in this amount of time.

The pandemic had created changes in both the supply (people jobless without support, or at least support that fully covered their living costs, people at home and bored, etc.) and demand (people working at home taking breaks in a way they couldn't at the office, people at home not working and bored and able to pay for it (supported by furlough schemes for instance), and people unable to pay but similarly bored and so future "I spent my savings and got into dept on porn" stories.

> now, most titles personally address the viewer with things like

That sounds like the good ol' "call to action" of the advertising world, it engages the mind, even if only subconsciously, especially if the wording means it could be directed personally, and gets more attention. If course when most titles follow the pattern the benefit will drop off precipitously but the pattern will stick around until the next big idea comes along and saturates the market.

> and reinforcing toxic attitudes

Including the "abuse of power" fantasies, either directly or through "she made me do it" inversions. Though porn has always had these there seems to have been a mad scramble towards "step family" crap in the role play as porn makers have realised it is legal in most places and recent (or recently surfaced) big scandals have made their previous go-to options (like the casting couch) less palettible. All the mainstream providers pushing the same thing, and the smaller/independent ones following so they appear in "related content" lists, poses a threat of normalising these dynamics in some minds which can put already vulnerable people at greater risk.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#164

Post by vmception » Tue, Jul 20, 2021, 7:53 AM UTC

the_doctah wrote: post #21

vmception wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>It requires pure misogyny to treat OnlyFans differently just because the content creators on OnlyFans are women leading with their bodies So if we took misogyny out of the equation no one would think OnlyFans favors attractive women?

It is no reason to treat the platform differently than other platforms

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#165

Post by unacc_acc » Tue, Jul 20, 2021, 7:54 AM UTC

ayngg wrote: post #74

throwmeawaydddy wrote: post #33

Fire up the throwaway! Not 100% related to the article, but directly related. I worked as developer for a product in the same niche ("democratizing adult content"). I spent almost 2 years working on the frontend, devops, and building out the analytics engine (all pre-covid). Anyway, on to the comment at hand. We had a small number of users compared to OnlyFans (when I left, there were about 20K active content creator…

I think in general there are some pretty big costs that aren't fully understood to doing sex work, even outside of the social stigma of being found out by your friends and family, there are mental health costs that are often not talked about. A lot of sex workers overtly reinforce social behaviors towards women (sexualization and objectification among other things) in order to appeal to men, which hurts them in the l…

We're 100+ comments into the thread and nobody's brought up free speech yet. Not an argument I'd make personally, but it comes up so readily for all other sites.

Imagine swapping this comments section for one on the BBC coverage of Parler. You'd get

- angry defense of the right of anyone to post anything

- repercussions to posting denounced as "cancel culture"

- advocacy of censorship-free payment methods

- condemnation of censorship by major tech companies (there's no OF app because it would be banned, and even mentioning it on Insta can sometimes get you banned, which is why creators post indirect links)

- demands for laws to be passed guaranteeing that you could post porn on Facebook without being banned

Conversely, if we swap this comment thread to one on Parler we'd be asking who these content creators are that are exploiting lonely young men, whether this kind of content should be stigmatized more, and if it's a history of abuse that leads them to do it.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#166

Post by NGRhodes » Tue, Jul 20, 2021, 7:54 AM UTC

somedude895 wrote: post #80

throwmeawaydddy wrote: post #33

Fire up the throwaway! Not 100% related to the article, but directly related. I worked as developer for a product in the same niche ("democratizing adult content"). I spent almost 2 years working on the frontend, devops, and building out the analytics engine (all pre-covid). Anyway, on to the comment at hand. We had a small number of users compared to OnlyFans (when I left, there were about 20K active content creator…

> The average monthly payment was $5000 (skewed massively by the top 5%). I used to work in the direct carrier billing department of a large telco and I'm still amazed by the phenomenon of whales. We'd get 98% of people spending 20 bucks on Spotify and the odd app here and there, and then there were people who would consistently spend 15k+ on Candy Crush (and pay their bills). Not the same level as what you're talkin…

I once worked in an unrelated industry where we had a customer who spent so much money with us, that we shipped them a free iPad out when theirs broke so they could resume spending silly amounts of money.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#167

Post by nazrulmum10 » Tue, Jul 20, 2021, 7:54 AM UTC

'I'm going to hunt you down'

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#168

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Jul 20, 2021, 7:55 AM UTC

rafale wrote: post #47

gnull wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument applies to any change. Trivially, not all the changes must be accepted, therefore the argument is flawed. UPD: rafale is right, I misunderstood the parent. It's not about any change, it's about allowing more freedoms.

The way I read it is that each generation is pushing the limit of freedoms. Sounds good if we stop right there... But is it? When does it become bad? Should a parent be accepting that their daughter opens an OF when she turns 18? Should society be accepting of it as a side "gig economy" kind of job? How about the boys who are usually on the consumers/payers end? We are monetizing intimacy and sex at a level like noth…

> We are monetizing intimacy and sex at a level like nothing before.

No, we’re divorcing the monetization of feigned intimacy and sex from pretense into more honest exchange like nothing before, and (arguably) moving it more from a pre-capitalist patron-servant model to a capitalist market exchange model.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#169

Post by quenix » Tue, Jul 20, 2021, 7:55 AM UTC

jtolmar wrote: post #142

quenix wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

… heavily skewed by the top 5%. So the number is likely way, way lower than $100M (perhaps $8-10M?)

It's an average, so the skew doesn't matter for this. Average = sum / count. Multiply both sides by count. Sum = count * average.

Neat! This does seem algebraically coherent. Unfortunately, it just doesn't make intuitive sense to my lizard brain.

Cool trick anyway, thanks for clearing it up!

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#170

Post by cookieswumchorr » Tue, Jul 20, 2021, 7:56 AM UTC

Dma54rhs wrote: post #109

eh9 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except it’s nothing like selling crack and the platform isn’t doing enough to keep performers safe.

How is not taking monetary advantage of lonely men who most likely never have normal human relationships not immoral? People spending money on these things are not your average Joe's. The whole idea is morally corrupt and onlyfans and the like are doing it on scale now.

who defines "normal human relationships", if we don't count various religions? IRL relationships can be just as addictive, toxic and financially perilous.