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

191–200 of 293 posts

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#191

Post by Ferret7446 »

enriquto wrote: post #97
sneak wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not exploitation unless the participants in the deal are being coerced. You can’t make a solid case for employees being coerced to work for an exploitative employer outside of company towns or non-functioning labor markets; neither of these apply to the Philippines. If the chatter thought the job was so bad, they can quit and get a different one. Millions of people make that choice, it is available to them. Ther…

> unless the participants in the deal are being coerced. Here's the nice thing about it: they are! If they don't work (for any of the equally exploitative companies in their country) they die.

Maybe you should take it up with your deity of choice. Capitalism didn't make humans need to eat to survive. Or perhaps you should try to bring back slavery, to make others work so you can eat without doing any work yourself. I admit it's an attractive proposition, but I'm not too fond of the impact on others since I'm a bit of a softie

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#192

Post by throwup238 »

Invictus0 wrote: post #56
chaseadam17 wrote: post #49

Somewhat unrelated but I won’t be surprised if we eventually find out a lot of OnlyFans revenue is money laundering.

Doubtful, there are other, less-well known pay-for-content platforms than take a smaller percentage cut than onlyfans. It wouldn't make any sense for a launderer to use the most expensive platform.

Money laundering via platforms can work indirectly, where the dirty money is spent on advertising and other expenses used to drive business to legitimate vendors. Sex sells quite well so OnlyFans is a great platform for that kind of laundering, even if they take a higher cut. It might not matter anyway, if a dollar of dirty money drives more than a dollar of legitimate income that covers OF’s cut and their AI costs.

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#193

Post by kelseyfrog »

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 probably buried in the ToS that who you're talking with is at the discretion of the hosting company. The only issue is that no one reads it.

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#194

Post by otterley »

9rx wrote: post #185
otterley wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ch…

> You must have forgotten to read the thread

There's no need to be rude.

The issue here comes down to money and therefore reliance and damages. Nobody's paying "MrBeast" in response to his (or his delegates') YouTube comments. So there's no material reliance and no damages; the 4th and 5th elements above aren't satisfied.

On the other hand, people are paying money thinking that they're talking to the model herself. Thus the 4th and 5th elements are satisfied, in addition to the other three.

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#195

Post by agreezy »

V__ wrote: post #38
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…

There is probably some lingo somewhere clarifying that you pay for the "experience" of her and not for her in particular.

This is everywhere not just OnlyFan, sadly

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#196

Post by freehorse »

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…

There have been lawsuits about it [0], however it seems most of them get dismissed by judges for one or another reason [1].

[0] https://www.courtwatch.news/p/onlyfans-sued-after-two-guys-r...

[1] https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/court-throws-explosive-o...

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#197

Post by eucyclos »

system2 wrote: post #179
eucyclos wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the risks if traditional prostitution are absent in an online interaction so it's not that surprising to me.

Morally, it is still prostitution. Some countries consider OnlyFans prostitution, some don't. At its core, a human is selling its body parts for money.

But they're not risking rape, murder, or sti s and their pimps options for keeping them in the game are much more limited.

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#198

Post by abeppu »

Ferret7446 wrote: post #187
abeppu wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

https://x.com/Waymo/status/1890083513531084973

Here's a waymo ad from a year ago. In like 10 seconds they repeat "it's driving itself" 3 times.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kJPDg207oc

Here's another one. The closing screen says "Autonomous rides 24/7". They talk about the robot

Here's a blogpost from 2021 in which they insist that their messaging from there forward will talk about "fully autonomous driving", and not merely self-driving. https://waymo.com/blog/2021/01/why-youll-hear-us-say-autonom...

Here's a post from this year where as part of their expansion to new cities they say " we continue our accelerated growth and welcome the first public riders into our _fully autonomous_ ride-hailing service in four new cities" (emphasis mine). https://waymo.com/blog/#:~:text=Waymo%20will%20begin%20fully...

I haven't read the TOS in the app and I'm sure they didn't legally commit that no human will ever be involved even in unusual circumstances (which would probably be irresponsible). But they have been advertising on the basis of being autonomous, they're presenting that as part of their value prop to new users. Maybe it's up to lawyers to decide whether that's "material". But they are repeatedly, loudly, proudly advertising and marketing on the basis of it being fully autonomous.

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#199

Post by freehorse »

wolvoleo wrote: post #190
tokyobreakfast wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is also a case in jurisdictions where it is all legal, because to meet demand it becomes then more profitable to bring (illegally) trafficked women to meet it. In particular, netherlands appear to be one of the highest in trafficking inflows [0, Appendix B].

From [0]:

> Our empirical analysis for a cross-section of up to 150 countries shows that the scale effect dominates the substitution effect. On average, countries where prostitution is legal experience larger reported human trafficking inflows.

[0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X1...

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#200

Post by tokyobreakfast »

wolvoleo wrote: post #190
tokyobreakfast wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

do they have a pussy ombudsman to investigate malfeasance and poor customer service?
Post reply on HN