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

271–280 of 293 posts

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#271

Post by DANmode »

overfeed wrote: post #233
lich_king wrote: post #127

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?

Good framing.

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#272

Post by DANmode »

superb_dev wrote: post #90
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…

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

The market is not you.

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#273

Post by otterley »

9rx wrote: post #270
otterley wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 act…

Honestly, I think this was just a case of other folks already understanding the nature of the issue discussed in the article (pay for DMs), while you did not. This isn't an insult or anything, just an observation.

A little humility is, I think, helpful for everyone here. Let's be kind to one another.

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#274

Post by dan-robertson »

renewiltord wrote: post #184
dan-robertson wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This and companies like paddy power are the breakout British business successes of the last few decades

Each region’s greatest successes represent them quite well: UK: gambling and porn Europe: luxury goods US: advertising and retail e-commerce China: direct from manufacturer commerce

I’m not so convinced by this. In the uk I think the big home grown successes are either serving the local market physically like supermarkets (though they are not very new as companies) or they will be relying on some difference in regulations from other anglophone countries. A business not in those categories needn’t be worse in general terms to lose to an American company, but the American competitor will have lots of advantages (cheaper fundraising, bigger market with more discretionary spending, more pro-business political environment, etc).

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#275

Post by mmooss »

mhb wrote: post #269
mmooss wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

I can't tell you more than I have. Good luck my friend!

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#276

Post by 9rx »

otterley wrote: post #273
9rx wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 act…

Honestly, I think this was just a case of other folks already understanding the nature of the issue discussed in the article (pay for DMs), while you did not. This isn't an insult or anything, just an observation. A little humility is, I think, helpful for everyone here. Let's be kind to one another.

Most certainly. I wouldn't be here if I understood the nature of it. Nobody talks about the things they know about. The mind loses interest in what it already understands. If it didn't we'd all be sitting here discussing 1+1=2. The whole point of having a discussion is to work together to build mental models around the things not understood.

Kindness is irrelevant, but lack of information did leave us without having learned anything. I suppose that's the game of trolling: To suck someone in thinking there is mutual desire to learn something and then leave them hanging in the end. But to want to control others is illogical, so that's life. On to the next learning chapter!

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#277

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

steve1977 wrote: post #257
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It did! We saw with the opioid crisis just how much devastation can be caused by a single drug wiggling its way into legality.

What was that single drug?

Oxycodone. Purdue Pharma sold a formulation of it in their product called OxyContin, which had (still has!) a variety of legitimate medical uses. But it's also very easy for addicts to abuse, and Purdue pushed doctors to prescribe it widely with few controls, which is generally believed to have sparked the US's huge surge in opioid abuse. (Of course, merely cracking down on oxycodone didn't resolve the problem, because once someone's addicted they become highly motivated to find some other opioid.)

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#278

Post by overfeed »

BoingBoomTschak wrote: post #254
overfeed wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

That question falls entirely under the legal concept of false advertising. Depends on what Gucci proclaimed.

What do you think of fast-food chains using of idealized-product-shots for ads and menu pictures that look nothing like their actual product? The.markerting uses pictures of products that take hours to prepare by 'food stylists' in a specialist kitchen/studio[1], and are often not even edible, but look great on camera.

Apocryphally, motor oil is sometimes used as a maple-syrup stunt-double. Is that false advertising to you? If so, why would an OnlyFans model be more culpable than McDonalds or Wendy's?

1. https://youtu.be/FBP-DxfZCgo

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#279

Post by johannes1234321 »

peterlk wrote: post #176
johannes1234321 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is also that international problem. If an South American is frauded on an US American platform, by an east European using an African fake chatter: Which legislation, which court is applicable? Which oversight authority should handle this?

I don’t think this problem is that hard to solve, it just requires political will that doesn’t exist. The solution is to make it the platform’s problem. If the platform doesn’t want to deal with fraud, they don’t get to operate in that jurisdiction. Sue them into submission. If they don’t care about that geography, then there is now a gap in the market for a more local business to fill.

How do I enforce that? - They probably got no office in my country. No representative I can arrest.

Maybe I can confiscate money paid for ad's or something, however that probably runs via a payment system outside my control.

So I have to punish my local companies advertising, but then it won't be my local branch of Coca-Cola advertising, but a foreign branch.

Enforcing this, without international cooperation, is tough. And currently international politics aren't in a cooperative phase for large parts.

Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'

#280

Post by jfengel »

cess11 wrote: post #264
jfengel wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The term "parasocial relationship" is usually reserved for actual people. You could stretch it to include fictional characters, but it misses out on some of the reasons we coined the term.

For example, you can't stalk Harry Potter. There are surely people stalking JK Rowling, and that is a better example of a parasocial relationship.

Not all parasocial relationships are pathological. It's just a useful extreme to illustrated why the distinction exists.

Post reply on HN