251–260 of 293 posts
At about the $10-12 mark you'd be able to hire people with serious linguistic skills.
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If they do like it, what's the issue? Are you serious? However goofy that sounds, they paid for a specific fantasy. They would not have paid if you advertised the service as "talk dirty with a random dude in India". If the reason they paid for this service is that they were promised a specific person, that's fraud. As simple as that. Your judgment about whether the services are equivalent doesn't matter. If I pay y…
> If I pay you for Gucci socks, and you intentionally send me cheaper HZBZZYXY socks The difference is t he product is 'blessed' by the official seller: Would you feel defrauded if Gucci sends you the Gucci-branded socks you ordered, but you discover later they were made by the HZBZZYXY factory in Guangdong rather than by an Italian master sock-craftsman?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The person I was replying to suggested that this person voluntarily chose this job over a bunch of equally good jobs. My point is that this is at best a mischaracterisation - they chose this job because of economic necessity. Yes, it may be that it pays more than equivalent non-porn jobs due to being rooted in foreign exchange. But that doesn't make it any more voluntary
How is that different than the reason most people work? Mining coal, putting out oil fires, industrial fishing. These are not only unpleasant - they are also dangerous.
[flagged]
So your position here is that we should take away their job, leaving them to suffer in abject poverty, while simultaneously banning wealthy Westerners from looking at shocked gasp tits?
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…
How many celebs, politicians, CEOs ... do you think manage their own socials?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(A) https://reason.com/2025/05/28/is-buying-onlyfans-content-now... (B) Just because the laws do not explicitly mention it does not make it less of a form of prostitution. (C) Selling your body regardless of the medium is prostitution. (D) I am looking at it from a moral perspective. Not legal. Let me know if you think selling your body is not prostitution.
selling your body for cash is what a warehouse worker does.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 coordinat…
Businesses are profit-maximizing organizations. They operate at maximum profit, not at the lowest! A business's managers don't meet to consider the lowest profit but how to maximize it. Critically, they don't price what they sell at (costs + some profit); the price it for maximum profit regardless of costs.
Some businesses have enormous profit margins, some businesses sell at a loss - many businesses do that regularly (e.g., clearance sales) - because that is the best they can do. Some sell at a loss strategically to gain market share, a common tactic of well-funded Silicon Valley companies.
> 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.
From the business owner's perspective, wages are a cost. Costs, including wages, go up and down all the time. If you make TVs, the price of glass might be X one month and 1.5X the next.
The business brings in revenue, which it splits between costs, investment, and profit. When costs increase, you can raise prices (which reduces demand, as you say, and also drives away customers longer term) or reduce investment and/or profit.
Also, the relationship between price and demand isn't linear; it varies by price and by good/service: Increasing gas prices temporarily may not impact demand much because most people have little choice but to drive, though in the long term they might make adjustments. Increasing candy prices, on the other hand, could have a big impact because most people can easily eat something else.
The employer of the person in the OP has a choice if wage costs increase: Increase prices, reduce investment, or, heaven forbid, reduce profit (reduce their own income).