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

261–270 of 293 posts

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#261

Post by ErroneousBosh »

PUSH_AX wrote: post #140
sequoia wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone paid to have a fantasy of sex, and they got that fantasy. If they don't like it, they don't do it again, and this is true whether it's "the model" or someone else. If they do like it, what's the issue? This is like saying you paid for a celebrity plumber & a regular plumber did the work, but you're upset because you wanted the celebrity. "The job" got done one way or another. They're selling digital handjobs…

That’s not what they paid for, they paid to speak to person x, not person y.

Which makes me wonder why Person Y doesn't just spin up their own account, since they've already got warm leads.

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#262

Post by bawolff »

PUSH_AX wrote: post #234
bawolff wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not retracting my original comment, i just don't think your analogy is related to what i said and in many ways is the opposite of what i said.

If you don’t recognise the parallels then I don’t know what to say really. All the best.

To use your own analogy, surely you must see there is a difference between someone attempting to purchase nike shoes and being tricked vs someone intentionally seeking out counterfeits (e.g. to get a deal)

My comment is wondering to what extent the clients are "tricked" vs to what extent they know (or suspect) its not the real OF model and dont care as long as the fantasy is intact.

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#263

Post by mhb »

mmooss wrote: post #260
mhb wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The employer is operating at the lowest profit he considers acceptable. 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…

Profit is not some arbitrary amount chosen by the owner to fund whatever lifestyle he prefers. It is constrained by competition with other businesses. I don't know why you keep suggesting that the amount of profit can be increased or decreased independently of any other factors.

If the profit in this business becomes less appealing relative to other businesses, the owner will change businesses, there will be less competition in this business and the prices will go up. Increasing potential profit.

This is basic stuff. Despite your aversion to business owners making a profit and wishing employees were paid more, introducing non-linearities, loss leaders, price inelasticities or any other complication does nothing to change the fundamental point.

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#264

Post by cess11 »

jfengel wrote: post #48
cess11 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does "para-" mean? Edit: Right, 'beside', 'outside', like in paranormal. Now, are parasocial relationships "human connection"?

It means that it shares some, but not all, aspects of a social relationship. It's often applied to one-sided relationships with celebrities, where you feel a personal connection to them but they literally don't know you exist.

Social relationship is much broader than human connection.

If I fall in love with Harry Potter, is that a human connection?

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#265

Post by theshrike79 »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #203
pjc50 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it technically against Meta TOS anyway to promote sex work?

try reporting an account and see what options you have. 'this person is advertising sex work' is not one of them, they dont care.

Also "this account is CLEARLY fully AI-generated and pretends to be an actual human" is not an option.

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#266

Post by otterley »

9rx wrote: post #217
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.

> 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…

I think what you're missing here is the difference in the communication dynamics and what people are paying for.

In the model-customer dynamic, a customer is giving money to a model on a quid pro quo basis: the model -- or so the customer believes -- is promising the customer personal attention and customized content in exchange for money. No money, no attention.

In the MrBeast example, nobody is paying MrBeast specifically in exchange for his YouTube comments, which are public. Paying MrBeast is not a precondition for his engagement; he (or his agents) are responding spontaneously. His fans may be inspired to contribute to funds, although MrBeast gets a lot of money from ad revenue. But there's no quid pro quo arrangement here.

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#267

Post by phendrenad2 »

swiftcoder wrote: post #255
mhb wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Agreed. Again, I was only responding to the original comment that this was a choice among equally good alternatives

I don't think anyone was saying or even implying that there were equally good alternatives. Being a con-man might be your best option if you're naturally gifted at lying. But that doesn't mean you get to complain that you're being exploited by the jail.

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#268

Post by mmooss »

mhb wrote: post #263
mmooss wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The employer is operating at the lowest profit he considers acceptable. 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…

Profit is not some arbitrary amount chosen by the owner to fund whatever lifestyle he prefers. It is constrained by competition with other businesses. I don't know why you keep suggesting that the amount of profit can be increased or decreased independently of any other factors. If the profit in this business becomes less appealing relative to other businesses, the owner will change businesses, there will be less com…

Most of that I didn't say, but it's certainly true that wage increases are commonly absorbed by reducing profits (or investment) rather than closing the business (!) or increasing prices.

Closing a business because wages or any cost go up a bit would be absurd. That is way overstated. Of course there is some undefined point where costs are too high to sustain, but closing and opening businesses is not trading stocks on Robinhood. There are large transactional costs, including to your reputation - investors, creditors, co-workers, business partners, employees, who have invested their precious time, money, and careers and reputations with you, would be very angry (probably they would replace you as CEO and keep going). And how will you pay your mortgage next month?

> the amount of profit can be increased or decreased independently of any other factors

It indeed can be decreased that way, except that the money has to go somewhere - retained earnings (savings), new gardens in the courtyard, even wage increases.

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#269

Post by mhb »

mmooss wrote: post #268
mhb wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Profit is not some arbitrary amount chosen by the owner to fund whatever lifestyle he prefers. It is constrained by competition with other businesses. I don't know why you keep suggesting that the amount of profit can be increased or decreased independently of any other factors. If the profit in this business becomes less appealing relative to other businesses, the owner will change businesses, there will be less com…

Most of that I didn't say, but it's certainly true that wage increases are commonly absorbed by reducing profits (or investment) rather than closing the business (!) or increasing prices. Closing a business because wages or any cost go up a bit would be absurd. That is way overstated. Of course there is some undefined point where costs are too high to sustain, but closing and opening businesses is not trading stocks…

> Closing a business because wages or any cost go up a bit would be absurd.

It is not absurd at all. This is economics thinking. There are always businesses on the margin of staying in business or going out of business. You don't base an argument on the extremes. You look at the marginal cases.

It's only absurd in the scenario you're imagining in which every business is somehow able to make so much profit that it's still worthwhile for them to reduce profits and increase wages. But there are other businesses who are willing to decrease profits to compete with that business. This is the precise mechanism of how profit is constrained and how consumers benefit from competition.

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#270

Post by 9rx »

otterley wrote: post #266
9rx wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I think what you're missing here is the difference in the communication dynamics and what people are paying for. In the model-customer dynamic, a customer is giving money to a model on a quid pro quo basis: the model -- or so the customer believes -- is promising the customer personal attention and customized content in exchange for money. No money, no attention. In the MrBeast example, nobody is paying MrBeast speci…

> I think what you're missing here is the difference in the communication dynamics and what people are paying for.

Exactly. I asked for details on exactly how the models are being marketed for that very reason. It was fully recognized be me that we cannot meaningfully discuss this without understanding the communication taking place. What I'm missing is the answer.

No doubt the other commenter realized that it is actually made clear to the buyer exactly what they are getting and that's why the response devolved into off-topic ad homiem and then disappearance. Funny how people react when their worldview crumbles, isn't it?

Post reply on HN