201–210 of 293 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not what is advertised, and if it was there would be no money in it.
I've been alive for several decades and almost nothing I've gotten was exactly as advertised. I'm not saying that's good, but it's consistent with reality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. T…
There's no need to interpret words through the arbitrary lens of silly feelings, yet here we are.
> Nobody's paying "MrBeast" in response to his (or his delegates') YouTube comments.
According to what? Is this something you made up?
If someone is willing to pay to talk to an internet figure, as you asserted they are, why not MrBeast? We can probably find agreement in MrBeast not being "herself". Is that the difference you find? The white knights only consider it fraud if the figure identifies as "her"?
> people are paying money thinking that they're talking to the model herself.
I'll have to accept your personal experience for what it is, but what in the marketing suggests the model is anything more than a brand? You even literally call it a model, not a person. That is quite telling that you understand the business at play, even if you want to pretend you don't for the sake of the fake argument.
We all know full well that MrBeast is a brand. Why are you treating MrsBeast differently?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even bigger stars seem to be doing it. This is Carmen Electra's _verified_ Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/CarmenElectra Scroll down a bit and you'll see all of the images have the exact same face plastered on a clearly AI body and the account is posting new photos multiple times per day. And every single post has thousands of likes and hundreds of messages from actual humans. People either don't notice the o…
Isn't it technically against Meta TOS anyway to promote sex work?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have never seen sleepy used that way before. I did a quick run of the numbers and it is rather hard to tell what the average hourly rate ìs. But it look a like if you went for four 40 hour weeks to get 320 it seems to be a little below the average pay for a call center operator. In one sense this is a story of someone feeling bad about being paid to do something wrong. It is not quite so simple when the reason why…
Sorry, autocorrect changed “skeezy” to “sleepy.” I think at the end of the comment, too. It wasn’t an immediate word or sentence change. I need to work harder to proof comments before posting. (Autocorrect changed “proof” to “prof” at the end of that sentence)
> The most popular creators on the platform claim to earn millions of dollars per month. This has never made sense and I'm convinced these "creators" are a front for money laundering.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If the labor market caused employees to be paid more, would the employer refuse? Shut down?
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.
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.
Being unable to sell 30 hours of work in a day is normal, not an excuse for fraud.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been alive for several decades and almost nothing I've gotten was exactly as advertised. I'm not saying that's good, but it's consistent with reality.
Consistent with what you think of as reality. For all you know, you're being Truman Show'ed.