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

351–360 of 615 posts

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#351

Post by wmeredith »

toyg wrote: post #140
girvo wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty of drug dealers complain about having to deal with addicts, for what its worth. Signed, an ex-addict.

This is also very well-depicted in The Wire, which came from primary journalistic sources. "Dope fiends" are customers, but most dealers actually despise them. They're disrespected and abused constantly, as well a systematically exploited and tricked (at one point diluting doses is discussed, because of supply restrictions, and eventually deemed a good thing because "we will sell twice as many").

This disdain for their clients also has another insidious layer where dealers will occasionally spike a does with extremely high purity (in the heroin world, they'll use Fentanyl) often leading to an overdose. Because if your shit is so good someone died using it, that gets around the community and it's good for business.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#352

Post by kderbyma »

ixacto wrote: post #57
labster wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sports is predatory, see the NCAA monopoly. Music was well known in the last century for predatory contracts. People like Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey from the film industry are often called predators, and the casting couch is legendary. Celebrity culture is highly predatory with obsessive fans and stalker paparazzi. You’re right, no real difference.

The NCAA is much more predatory. Yes you get free college but sports can be the focus 100% of the time, then there is no focus on academics. So when you don't get drafted, there is a little problem... Onlyfans is stupid, hopefully noone has faced violence in the real world from it.

the article made is clear that people are currently receiving violence.....it's not a hypothetical.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#353

Post by Telemakhos »

Spooky23 wrote: post #329
Telemakhos wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't going to be a welcome question or politically correct, but why do you let your wife continue to engage in something that is "majority trauma" and that makes her need therapy?

Why do people sell cheeseburgers at McDonalds? They need the cash.

The median OnlyFans account makes something like $180 gross, $136 net, per month. https://xsrus.com/the-economics-of-onlyfans Any minimum wage job provides more income. Selling cheeseburgers at McDonalds would be much more profitable than working OnlyFans for the majority of OnlyFans accounts.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#355

Post by hasbot »

stared wrote: post #154

I was surprised why OnlyFans is so popular. All in all, there is no shortage of free erotic materials online ( https://observablehq.com/@stared/tree-of-reddit-sex-life for a small subset). I got an insight from "The Surprising Psychology Of OnlyFans Simps by Charisma on Command" ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auG2E53dFas ) that subscribers buy attention rather than sex .

That people are buying attention is very obvious in other settings. I used to watch a lot of MTB YouTube channels. The YouTuber would do a live stream and there'd be a massive number of chat messages. Somebody would donate $10 or whatever and the YouTuber would stop what they're doing and make a very friendly comment to the donator as if the YouTuber knew the guy. From their comments, many of the channel watchers appeared to be young (less than 20).

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#356

Post by gadders »

Khaine wrote: post #296

I’m not anti-sex or anti-sex work, but I think onlyfans is evil. They have a business model, that is perfected to extract as much money from whales as possible. Performers appear to have ‘relationships’ with their subscribers, encourage them to tip, buy ‘customs’, and ‘engage’ with them. These sad lonely sexless men spend all their money on this shit. It consumes them, until they are out of money, then it destroys th…

They have monetised incels.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#357

Post by morbia »

Khaine wrote: post #296

I’m not anti-sex or anti-sex work, but I think onlyfans is evil. They have a business model, that is perfected to extract as much money from whales as possible. Performers appear to have ‘relationships’ with their subscribers, encourage them to tip, buy ‘customs’, and ‘engage’ with them. These sad lonely sexless men spend all their money on this shit. It consumes them, until they are out of money, then it destroys th…

I wholeheartedly agree with you, but unfortunately onlyfans is certainly not unique when it comes to whales. Mobile gaming is the classic example, and that is arguably worse in that it often targets children.

It is really a symptom of a wider problem where years of sophisticated A/B testing and social manipulation in businesses has been honed to such an extent that small pockets of the population find it impossible to resist the dopamine hit, be that some porn or an item in a game.

I really don't know what the solution is, regulation I guess? I'm not sure in what form that would look like though.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#358

Post by dangerface »

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…

> There is nothing inherently evil about this stuff so why is it terrible that it is becoming more accepted/common?

They specifically talk about their kids being targeted with porn. Targeting kids with porn is grooming behaviour it results in a lot of evil, not something we want to normalise.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#359

Post by knodi »

throwmeawaydddy wrote: post #33

Fire up the throwaway! Not 100% related to the article, but directly related. I worked as developer for a product in the same niche ("democratizing adult content"). I spent almost 2 years working on the frontend, devops, and building out the analytics engine (all pre-covid). Anyway, on to the comment at hand. We had a small number of users compared to OnlyFans (when I left, there were about 20K active content creator…

I’m not hating on these women, I understand they’re trying to make a living, and there is nothing wrong with what they’re doing.

What you described is the danger of getting into any kind business without fully understanding the risk, market, and potential outcomes.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#360

Post by serverholic »

tclancy wrote: post #334
blippage wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I feel like these dangerous aspects of sex work are often ignored in the current zeitgeist of de-stigmatizing, I agree entirely. I heard of one young lady who started an OnlyFans, apparently did quite well, but decided to stop it because of the psychic damage. I'm going to be heavily downvoted for this, but I'm going to say it anyway ... We need to stop all the bullshit about how it empowers women. Certain sections…

Are you suggesting men are the real victims here?

You assume he cares about who is a "real" victim.
Post reply on HN