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

211–220 of 293 posts

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#211

Post by Dylan16807 »

9rx wrote: post #202
otterley wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 be rude. 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 "h…

You're getting mixed up. Some people would pay to talk to Mr. Beast, but the people commenting on YouTube aren't paying.

> You even literally call it a model, not a person.

That's the name of the job. With this, the feelings remark, and half of your statements so far it's hard to believe you're not trolling.

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#212

Post by Dylan16807 »

9rx wrote: post #142
nradov wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it is the reverse.

So what you are saying is that, under communism, women exploit women and men bear the children? I know Projet de communauté philosophe is utopian, but I don't think that is the story it tells. Maybe something got lost in translation?

Someone upvoted you for tripping on a joke this hard? Weird.

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#213

Post by Dylan16807 »

bawolff wrote: post #30

> She would be set targets to earn the model hundreds of dollars worth of sales of pictures and videos during her shift. So lets assume $300 per shift, so with an 8 hour shift, that would be about $37.50/hour of merchandise per hour. So the workers makes about 5.3%. Google says standard for sales workers paid on comission normally get 5-10%. So its possible this is within what would be normal for a low end non-salary…

They're doing sex work and sales at the same time. Even if it wasn't sex work specifically, they're doing a lot of direct labor which also makes a fair cut much higher than 5%.

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#214

Post by jacquesm »

tokyobreakfast wrote: post #200
wolvoleo wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The chances of that happening are 0.0001% compared to the chances of the visitors misbehaving.

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#215

Post by mhb »

mmooss wrote: post #207
mhb wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What is that based on? The employer is making a profit; they can reduce those profits and pay employees more. It happens all the time in response to the labor market. If the labor market caused employees to be paid more, would the employer refuse? Shut down?

It is based on the idea that the employer is running a business and competing with other businesses to provide the best product at the lowest cost. The employer is operating at the lowest profit he considers acceptable. In your imagination there is some "labor market" which is going to coordinate to bring all these businesses to an impasse. That's not going to happen.

If somehow the labor market was able to coordinate to demand higher wages, the business would have to increase its price. There would be less demand at the higher price. Consequently there would be fewer businesses and fewer workers would have jobs at all.

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#216

Post by awesome_dude »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #211
9rx wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's no need to be rude. 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 "h…

You're getting mixed up. Some people would pay to talk to Mr. Beast, but the people commenting on YouTube aren't paying. > You even literally call it a model, not a person. That's the name of the job. With this, the feelings remark, and half of your statements so far it's hard to believe you're not trolling.

> it's hard to believe you're not trolling.

Look at the account's comment history - I've had the misfortune of interacting with them, and they're not replying in good faith at all (IMO)

If there's a way for someone (with moderation powers) to look at the account to see if it is ever doing anything but trolling that would be good.

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#217

Post by 9rx »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #211
9rx wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's no need to be rude. 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 "h…

You're getting mixed up. Some people would pay to talk to Mr. Beast, but the people commenting on YouTube aren't paying. > You even literally call it a model, not a person. That's the name of the job. With this, the feelings remark, and half of your statements so far it's hard to believe you're not trolling.

> but the people commenting on YouTube aren't paying.

MrBeast is allegedly the highest paid YouTuber and yet, I guess, you think he works for free? While not exactly public information, industry analysts estimate that $5MM per year revenue is generated from direct fan funding to support his channel, so that, you know, "he" can do things write comments to the patrons.

> That's the name of the job.

Exactly. "Model" is used in recognition of the dehumanized object. In art, a human model is considered to be no different than a clay model. In fashion, the human model is considered to be no different than a clothes rack. The point of using the word is to separate the person from what the person is displaying. Otherwise you could simply say "person". "Model" is also used in this context because the concept is the same — the product isn't the person.

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#218

Post by [deleted] »

awesome_dude wrote: post #216
Dylan16807 wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're getting mixed up. Some people would pay to talk to Mr. Beast, but the people commenting on YouTube aren't paying. > You even literally call it a model, not a person. That's the name of the job. With this, the feelings remark, and half of your statements so far it's hard to believe you're not trolling.

> it's hard to believe you're not trolling. Look at the account's comment history - I've had the misfortune of interacting with them, and they're not replying in good faith at all (IMO) If there's a way for someone (with moderation powers) to look at the account to see if it is ever doing anything but trolling that would be good.

[deleted]

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#219

Post by 9rx »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #212
9rx wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what you are saying is that, under communism, women exploit women and men bear the children? I know Projet de communauté philosophe is utopian, but I don't think that is the story it tells. Maybe something got lost in translation?

Someone upvoted you for tripping on a joke this hard? Weird.

Nobody upvoted me. That goes without saying, no? Why would anyone take time out of their day to press a button that does absolutely nothing?

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#220

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN