Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Under the skin of OnlyFans

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 615 posts

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#281

Post by Fnoord »

> For creators who do receive abuse, the site allows them to mute or block that fan. However, the platform automatically gives anyone who has been blocked - regardless of the reason - a refund of their active subscription.

> Many creators who spoke to the BBC felt this policy was misused by fans and some said it can incentivise them to be rude or provocative, as their monthly subscriptions come to a close. Others added this made them feel penalised for being mistreated.

Client-side block. They can still see your content, and pay for it, but you won't be reading their messages (whatever they are). Since its send by platform, and not E2EE, the content is available for the platform and/or LE.

As for OnlyFans not responding to "I'm going to kill your children." and "I'm going to rape you." (among others), that makes me very emotional that they don't do anything with this. Threatening to rape someone should be illegal, and threatening to kill someone's children is for me worse than threatening to kill me. They should have reported this to authorities, but instead they went for short term benefits by pulling the ostrich card. Shame on you, OnlyFans.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#282

Post by newsclues »

Xylakant wrote: post #241
newsclues wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two anecdote from different sides of the spectrum and you feel the one you disagree with is dangerous. Just because normal jobs suck, doesn’t mean sex work is good.

I feel it’s dangerous shaping conversations around individual anecdotes. I can tell you multiple positive anecdotes from the nursing side as well. Another friend of mine did long-term individual care for a disabled person and they got along extremely well, even traveling and such. That friend considered that his dream job. My father’s current partner volunteers at a hospice. She considers that an important part of he…

You seemed to focus only only positive anecdotes, and then claim the negative ones are dangerous.

Anyone can cherry pick data and present a few cases to support their world view.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#283

Post by vagrantJin »

brazzy wrote: post #117
ayngg wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think in general there are some pretty big costs that aren't fully understood to doing sex work, even outside of the social stigma of being found out by your friends and family, there are mental health costs that are often not talked about. A lot of sex workers overtly reinforce social behaviors towards women (sexualization and objectification among other things) in order to appeal to men, which hurts them in the l…

> A lot of sex workers overtly reinforce social behaviors towards women (sexualization and objectification among other things) in order to appeal to men, which hurts them in the long run. This is something that's really been bugging me when looking at Reddit's porn subs. There has been a really noticeable change in the last 2 years. Back then, a majority of the posters seemed to actually be amateurs getting their kic…

> reinforcing toxic attitudes among the men.

Or it could just be normal, expected behaviour.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#284

Post by dalbasal »

SilverRed wrote: post #45
650REDHAIR wrote: post #20

So our kids are getting older so I've been paying more attention to popular social networks and it's wild how many YouTubers, Twitch'ers, TikTok'ers, Instagram'ers have OF content directly linked from their non-porn bios. I don't like it, but I'm not sure what a good solution is. I mean, people are free to do what they'd like, but it's hard to police screen time 100% of the time and their peer group has a lot more ac…

Have you considered the alternative that this is not an evil which you are unable to control but just another way of living / thinking of sexual content? There is nothing inherently evil about this stuff so why is it terrible that it is becoming more accepted/common? If in 30 years we live in a society where people post nudes like they do facebook posts, is there anything wrong about this? Could you describe the harm…

>> If in 30 years we live in a society where people post nudes like they do facebook posts..

..then the calculus will be different. Current culture is what it is, and we live within it.

Imagine a culture where prostitution is "no big deal." It's acceptable for parents to encourage college kids to take a summer job in a brothel and it affects their life in the same way as a summer job at a car wash. Just because you can imagine such a culture doesn't mean that the same advice applies in our world

Similarly, there are plenty of cultures where premarital sex is totally unacceptable, especially for girls. You might think that's silly, and other cultures do exist that aren't like this. Taking your advice might profoundly affect their life, their ability to marry and live within their culture.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#285

Post by brazzy »

dannyw wrote: post #257
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally addressing the reader makes them engage more, tempts them into engaging with the author in comments or, if they're thirsty, DMs. It's like youtube videos where a repeated pattern is direct questions to answer in the comments, invitations to share your thoughts, or even games like including "hidden words" in the video. There's not even a reward or anything for finding it, but it's apparently enough for some…

Is this wrong at all? I like YouTube, particularly creators like Gamers Nexus/ Hardware Unboxed for example, and like it when they engage in discussions on reddit or discord. The internet connects people, sometimes 1:1, sometimes 1:N.

It's wrong when it deliberately creates a promise of closeness that is completely illusionary.

A Youtuber asking for comments they may or may not have the time to read is one thing, a camgirl writing 200 subscribers "Haven't seen you in a while, touching myself now imagining your dick inside me" is a very different thing.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#286

Post by 9dev »

dannyw wrote: post #257
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally addressing the reader makes them engage more, tempts them into engaging with the author in comments or, if they're thirsty, DMs. It's like youtube videos where a repeated pattern is direct questions to answer in the comments, invitations to share your thoughts, or even games like including "hidden words" in the video. There's not even a reward or anything for finding it, but it's apparently enough for some…

Is this wrong at all? I like YouTube, particularly creators like Gamers Nexus/ Hardware Unboxed for example, and like it when they engage in discussions on reddit or discord. The internet connects people, sometimes 1:1, sometimes 1:N.

It's "wrong" (in the sense we're discussing here, that is, morally) if the invitation to engagement isn't an honest desire to communicate with viewers, but merely a marketing strategy to lure in more viewers to maximize ad spend.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#287

Post by brazzy »

vagrantJin wrote: post #283
brazzy wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A lot of sex workers overtly reinforce social behaviors towards women (sexualization and objectification among other things) in order to appeal to men, which hurts them in the long run. This is something that's really been bugging me when looking at Reddit's porn subs. There has been a really noticeable change in the last 2 years. Back then, a majority of the posters seemed to actually be amateurs getting their kic…

> reinforcing toxic attitudes among the men. Or it could just be normal, expected behaviour.

Expected by whom? I'm really not sure what you're trying to say.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#288

Post by throwaway0a5e »

tinco wrote: post #122
brazzy wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A lot of sex workers overtly reinforce social behaviors towards women (sexualization and objectification among other things) in order to appeal to men, which hurts them in the long run. This is something that's really been bugging me when looking at Reddit's porn subs. There has been a really noticeable change in the last 2 years. Back then, a majority of the posters seemed to actually be amateurs getting their kic…

The titles on sites like pornhub are a lot worse. Sometimes I feel like they're automatically generated or something, with weird sexual fantasies that aren't even remotely in the video. It's become a bit of a meme, and it certainly has always been present but for example the incest stuff, it's just disturbing to me to the point where I greatly prefer browsing on Reddit just because the titles are more tame. Another c…

They're gaming the algo in order to check the most boxes.

Every word you add is another tag or search your video is related to.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#289

Post by blfr »

galgalesh wrote: post #247
Bayart wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>we should expect and accept that people are violent to them? Accept no, expect absolutely. Which is why boundaries and control mechanisms are needed, the removal of which is the entire premise of OnlyFans. >I mean, chat shows are pretty much the same thing, an illusion of a social relationship, but we don't accept stalkers on those platforms? Are you referring to Twitch ? That's not the same thing, at all. Sex isn't…

> Sex isn't a minor variable. It re-frames the entire problem in a context where people lose the ability to appropriately parse and manage their para-social relationships What is the reason people lose the ability to appropriately parse and manage themselves in the context of sex?

> What is the reason people lose the ability to appropriately parse and manage themselves in the context of sex?

Its centrality to a billion year old process of sexual selection and reproduction.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#290

Post by BoxOfRain »

tremon wrote: post #228
EvilEy3 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sex work is work that will always have demand Sure, doesn't make it a good or socially acceptable job though.

Neither is garbage bin collection*, but there's still people doing it. *insert locally-relevant pariah job here

This is actually a really interesting concept, I was channel-flipping once and saw a programme about recycling where people doing things like retail work were taken to a recycling centre to learn about the process doing the job first hand. One of the girls on the programme's first reaction to the line where rubbish was sorted was along the lines of "I'm not a dirty person like you, why do I have to touch the rubbish?". Bearing in mind she would have probably have been paid less and was from the same area and background as the people she was dismissing as "dirty".

The way we stigmatise "dirty" jobs is a bit weird, in the above scenario the "dirty" job would have likely paid better and is definitely more essential to society. It really stuck with me how the girl in the programme didn't just dismiss the job as dirty, but the person doing the job too as though taking a better paid but physically less pleasant job is somehow a dishonourable thing to do. This isn't a class thing either, both people in this scenario were from a working-class background so I don't think this is an issue of class-based snobbery.

Post reply on HN