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

171–180 of 615 posts

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#171

Post by leppr »

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.

You should get out of your echo bubble. I have a few friends spending on these types of services (and Twitch which seems to have evolved to host soft versions of OF-type content). They're sociable, principled people, who also have many "regular" relationships. It's not a zero-sum affair.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#172

Post by NGRhodes »

KirillPanov wrote: post #123
somedude895 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> people who would consistently spend 15k+ on Candy Crush (and pay their bills). Sounds like a very successful money laundering operation.

Money laundering is a challenge even in the more tightly regulated industry I worked in. Conversely at one of my previous employers some of our big spenders were publicly known high end rich.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#173

Post by dragonwriter »

stared wrote: post #154

I was surprised why OnlyFans is so popular. All in all, there is no shortage of free erotic materials online ( https://observablehq.com/@stared/tree-of-reddit-sex-life for a small subset). I got an insight from "The Surprising Psychology Of OnlyFans Simps by Charisma on Command" ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auG2E53dFas ) that subscribers buy attention rather than sex .

> I got an insight from "The Surprising Psychology Of OnlyFans Simps by Charisma on Command" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auG2E53dFas) that subscribers buy attention rather than sex.

That's like one of the oldest i and vest known insights about sex work generally, so I’m not surprised that it is reflected in OF. (Its even more obviously true of its more celebrity- but less porn-focussed cousin, Cameo.)

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#174

Post by [deleted] »

unacc_acc wrote: post #165
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…

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 - condemnat…

[deleted]

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#175

Post by jmfldn »

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. Sure, it's always consenting adults exercising their constitutional rights and freedoms. But it feels wrong. Like the parent said, maybe I am just getting old."

Unpopular view in this day and age but maybe you're getting wise. Whatever the thing you're out of touch with, gig economy prostitution essentially, isn't worth being that in touch with. Maybe I'm just an old man too, but this sort of hyper-commodification of sex mixed with the nightmare that is social media just seems like a dystopic nightmare on so many levels. This sort of thing is not a good direction for society. The obvious emotional emptiness and moral bankruptcy that underlies this is stark.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#176

Post by cookieswumchorr »

hobofan wrote: post #131
curiousgal wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I totally disagree. We've all been teenagers. The content creators posting their OF on TikTok are purposefully targeting teenagers with access to mommy's credit card. I see it a s purely evil and predatory.

Sounds like you think that TikTok is a platform exclusive to teenagers. 75% of (US) TikTok users are 20 years and older[0]. [0]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1095186/tiktok-us-users-...

and I'm over 100 years old on some sites that demand a birth date to register

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#177

Post by techbio »

tinus_hn wrote: post #98
philangist wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a person has your full name (from your Instagram account you use to cross promote your OF) and naked pictures of you what can the platform do at that point to keep you safe?

Realistically the only thing that can be done is not caring about anyone seeing your naked pictures.

When somebody cares about seeing it enough to pay it becomes harder to pretend it's nothing.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#178

Post by jokethrowaway »

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…

While I agree it definitely has some disadvantages, these influencers turning OFs understand the trade off: my reputation, my private photos / videos for millions earned passively.

All influencers hoping to make decent money on OFs already need to have some kind of platform, so they already massively traded away their privacy. Selling a nudie is the next step if you're struggling to make money.

This guy (a fellow Software Engineer actually) is a growing YouTube channel who's doing a sort of vlog / reality show about his family and friends. Once he started approaching 1mln subs by consistently putting out great content, his friends and family launched their own social channels as well to benefit from the clout.

His mom and his girlfriend have their own YouTube channels but they're not as popular. Still, their onlyfans passed his YouTube's channel revenue in a very short time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQsp54kyMwE

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#179

Post by megous »

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

Society empowers the creeps this way.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#180

Post by omgitsabird »

hobofan wrote: post #131
curiousgal wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I totally disagree. We've all been teenagers. The content creators posting their OF on TikTok are purposefully targeting teenagers with access to mommy's credit card. I see it a s purely evil and predatory.

Sounds like you think that TikTok is a platform exclusive to teenagers. 75% of (US) TikTok users are 20 years and older[0]. [0]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1095186/tiktok-us-users-...

Is statista a reputable site? Sources are paywalled, which seems dubious at face value.
Post reply on HN