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

181–190 of 293 posts

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#181

Post by otterley »

9rx wrote: post #123
otterley wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re not passing themselves off as MrBeast.

So you understand that a MrBeast burger isn't made by, or from, the person known as MrBeast, but when one pays to join the MrBeast YouTube channel you are certain the comments from user MrBeast are made by the person known as MrBeast? What's the difference?

Feels like you're making this more complicated than it needs to be. The elements of fraud are quite simple:

1. a false statement of material fact

2. knowledge that the statement is false

3. intent to induce reliance

4. justifiable reliance by the victim

5. resulting damages

The "buying a burger from a MrBeast cafe" fails to meet element 1, because nobody at MrBeast burger is falsely claiming to be MrBeast himself.

On the other hand, falsely passing oneself as a model in order to earn revenue for them meets elements 1, 2, and 3. Elements 4 and 5 will depend on whether the victim fell for the scheme.

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#182

Post by mhb »

mmooss wrote: post #133
mhb wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once you make this job illegal, what do you think she does then for a job? By taking this job she has revealed that this is her best option. When you make the job illegal, you're forcing her to take a worse alternative.

That's the argument of employers, who introduce that false choice. The option they don't mention is to pay them more.

That's only an option in your imagination; not in the world she lives in.

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#183

Post by dangus »

layer8 wrote: post #58
dangus wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true, but I also think that the information in the article alone is insufficient to make a judgment. This salary is over the Philippines minimum wage. It's a legal job like any other. The people interviewed are not super happy about the content of the job, but none of it seems to be anything more than it being pornography-related. Nobody's really seeming to cross any lines of illegality as described in the ar…

What crosses the line is that, as stated in the article, the job is a dishonest scam towards the clients.

I didn’t really think so.

I don’t think a significant amount of OnlyFans customers are under any false impression that they’re making a real person horny or that they are engaging in any kind of genuine relationship with a performer.

I think they know that they are paying for sexual interactivity as a service. They are getting what they paid for: someone at the other end conversing with them and semi-custom erotic photo/video content.

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#184

Post by renewiltord »

dan-robertson wrote: post #152
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

Each region’s greatest successes represent them quite well:

UK: gambling and porn

Europe: luxury goods

US: advertising and retail e-commerce

China: direct from manufacturer commerce

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#185

Post by 9rx »

otterley wrote: post #181
9rx wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you understand that a MrBeast burger isn't made by, or from, the person known as MrBeast, but when one pays to join the MrBeast YouTube channel you are certain the comments from user MrBeast are made by the person known as MrBeast? What's the difference?

Feels like you're making this more complicated than it needs to be. The elements of fraud are quite simple: 1. a false statement of material fact 2. knowledge that the statement is false 3. intent to induce reliance 4. justifiable reliance by the victim 5. resulting damages The "buying a burger from a MrBeast cafe" fails to meet element 1, because nobody at MrBeast burger is falsely claiming to be MrBeast himself. On…

> nobody at MrBeast burger is falsely claiming to be MrBeast himself.

Nobody said that they were. You must have forgotten to read the thread. When 'MrBeast' comments on YouTube to those who pay for a subscription to his channel, it is claiming to be MrBeast, however. But is it him? You completely understand he doesn't have time to flip burgers, and thus would never expect him to, so why do you think he has time to chat to random internet customers?

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#187

Post by Ferret7446 »

abeppu wrote: post #158
gruez wrote: post #69

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. 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.

But that's not what they're paying for. You're hoping to get the automated experience but you aren't paying for the automated experience. This is like going to Hooters to buy a meal and then suing because the girl you wanted to see didn't serve you.

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#188

Post by wolvoleo »

Yeah I saw one of these online. An onlyfans performer was livestreaming on another platform, clearly not typing and at the same time chatted me up on onlyfans lol. Clearly it wasn't her herself. I kinda strung "her" on and she sent me some obvious stock pics saying "she" was out on the town.

I only pay genuine performers, some of whom I even know in person. I only subscribed to the above one because it was a free sub. But I was kinda appalled. First I thought it was a chatbot but it probably was a person like this.

For me the connection is a lot more important than the erotic content. But it's pretty easy to weed them out for now. Maybe this will change with better AI. I hope not.

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#189

Post by wolvoleo »

superb_dev wrote: post #90
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…

I can’t believe that someone paying for this actually expects to chat with the model. Just think of the logistics, it would be impossible

I have some models I really chat with, like outside of their performances. Not all day obviously and they often don't respond for days but that's ok. I know it's them because I can see them typing live sometimes and also some of them I know in person and they remember what I've said online.

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#190

Post by wolvoleo »

tokyobreakfast wrote: post #145
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…

Prostitution is not an industry known for its ethics or integrity.

That's only really in jurisdictions where it's illegal. It just comes with the criminal aspect. In Holland they even have a union called the red thread.
Post reply on HN