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

Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

matthewball.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 878 posts

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#321

Post by noisy_boy »

acdha wrote: post #269
prmoustache wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OTOH this is not the same as "VHS" porn of the past decades. A few decades ago, there weren't that many "productions", performers were much fewer and some porn performers name were known by anyone, regardless if you had seen porn with them staring or not. A person getting out of the business and trying to make a new career would have a high chance of meeting people, especially men, in real life who might have seen at…

> Even the most addicted to porn can't possibly follow and keep track of more than a tiny subset of performers. So there is a good chance you can still have a career alongside it or switch from OF to a non sex related career easily. This is dangerously wrong coming at least a decade after there are entire communities devoted to unmasking performers’ real identities and multiple reverse image search tools exist as app…

That is assuming that the identification will be solely driven by random individuals. However, expect there to be, if there already aren't, professional services that will do that in an organized way e.g. somebody may hire them for building an online presence profile of a future spouse. With the advent of AI and scaling afforded by cloud, such initiatives will only get more effective.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#322

Post by makeitdouble »

ant_li0n wrote: post #294
makeitdouble wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because clearly it’s not about the content per see which is a dim a dozen and available for free in trove. I think you should step back and look at it with a bit of distance. Is the content they're paying for really the same as you think is available for free, and do they even get it under the same conditions, in morality and circumstance. Not knowing your life, it feels like you could have said the same towards pe…

> The first step to alleviate these specific situations could be to stop marginalizing this kind of content and give them a regular professional status, instead of systematicly pigeon hole it I dislike arguments made in this vein, it's sortof a way to intellectually dismiss someone's point without addressing it. I share the grandparent poster's concern. Parasocial relationships feed us in a certain way, but do not no…

I'm not sure what's to address about parent's point, in that it's already a focus of law enforcement, there will be widely popular polical campaigns to gather people with these inclinations, and it's the standard rethoric of most western societies.

I don't see the CrossFit like dogma of "if it's not working just do more of it" as beneficial in this topic.

I also don't like looking at a service like OF and only focusing on the extremes.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#323

Post by dr-detroit »

wincy wrote: post #285
beaglesss wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you take a video of taking a shit mostly no one is gonna think you're immoral or shameful but if there's videos plastered everywhere of you shitting on cam for cash then it could be detrimental to your social standing.

Blippie the children’s show star has somehow come out unscathed after literally shitting on his friend while doing a Harlem Shake video. I’m not really sure how. I tell every parent I meet who mentions Blippi but it’s like trying to stop a river from flowing.

[dead]

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#324

Post by almatabata »

itishappy wrote: post #309
SecretDreams wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the OP is right about the parasocial aspect. OF content and other such platforms is about the personalization aspect. Sure, there's some kinks/fetishes too.. but it is primarily about engagement. In some ways, it's just an explicit, subscription based, social media platform where it feels like you're being treated uniquely... But most times you are not.

How is that particularly different from, say, concerts? The social aspects are what drives value.

[dead]

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#325

Post by paxys »

raxxorraxor wrote: post #318
paxys wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vast majority of people are also not paying OnlyFans.

That is what I meant, I understood you comment as "paying for OnlyFans" is human nature. I would dispute that as a general statement because I believe it is a very special demographic that does that.

Sure, but that "special demographic" has stayed consistent throughout human history. Which is why this entire market has existed for a similar period.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#326

Post by highcountess »

braza wrote: post #118

Not a moralistic take, but one issue that interests me is the second-order impacts associated with the long tail of producers in OF who do not make a career from it. With traditional adult entertainment, creators are aware of the social ramifications (e.g., social stigma, familial ostracism, difficulty dealing with the future, and so on), and there is a decent theoretical economic framework to measure that. I am not…

[flagged]

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#327

Post by helsinkiandrew »

> These reports, which have not been independently verified, show her lifetime gross billings exceed $70 million, with Bhabie collecting $57 million. Over half of revenues were generated via paid messages with individual users (which may include custom audio-visual content).

I can see how 10's of thousands of people paying $25 a month can generate millions but $25M on private messages in a year is over $70K a day - how many is she doing or how much do they cost each?

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#328

Post by [deleted] »

tjs8rj wrote: post #300
RandomThoughts3 wrote: post #242

What I find fascinating/disturbing with OnlyFans and in some way with Twitch and streaming in general is more the client side than the creators. Here are basically people paying, and paying a lot, for parasocial relationships. Because clearly it’s not about the content per see which is a dim a dozen and available for free in trove. I think it says something quite dark about our society as a whole that we have basical…

We’re the cohort putting our hand on the stove to remember you get burned. Vices like gambling, obscenity, prostitution, drugs, etc are banned or heavily controlled societies over because they have significant negative cultural effects. “Why do YOU care what other people do in their private lives?” was always a stupid justification: if everyone in your community is addicted to vices, that DOES affect me.

[deleted]

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#329

Post by itishappy »

SecretDreams wrote: post #315
itishappy wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that particularly different from, say, concerts? The social aspects are what drives value.

It's the feeling of being more personalized. I see what you're saying about concerts, but it is not the same. Nobody is going to the concert thinking the musician is "talking to them" or making content specifically "for them".

I think there's significant overlap in both.

Most OF content is not personalized. It might be consumed solo, but it's produced for a wider distribution. On the concert side, I feel there's a similar situation where you can pay a little to get the same experience as everyone else, or you can pay a lot to get VIP passes and a personalized experience.

Also, both situations are strongly dependent on the size of the fanbase. You're not going to get a personalized show from Taylor Swift or Bella Thorne, but smaller musicians and OF performers target that vibe exclusively.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#330

Post by lazide »

hiddencost wrote: post #311
tjs8rj wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We’re the cohort putting our hand on the stove to remember you get burned. Vices like gambling, obscenity, prostitution, drugs, etc are banned or heavily controlled societies over because they have significant negative cultural effects. “Why do YOU care what other people do in their private lives?” was always a stupid justification: if everyone in your community is addicted to vices, that DOES affect me.

Obscenity?

Do you think 2 girls 1 cup, blue waffle, or ‘the jar’ helped anyone in society to see?

If so, how?

Should they be required watching in elementary school? If not, why not?

Post reply on HN