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

371–380 of 615 posts

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#371

Post by SaltyBackendGuy »

topicseed wrote: post #191
stevoski wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know more about the online poker industry than I wish I did. This “whale” phenomenon describes exactly why online poker is so profitable for the site operators. The profits don’t come from the masses of people cautiously playing on micro stakes tables, but the whales, who will give the poker rooms thousands each month in rake.

Do poker site operators not entice whales by offering rakeback deals and special discounts? Poker is weird because the largest chunks of all monies go from one player to the other. But I assume rakes, at higher stakes, do add up really quickly...

> But I assume rakes, at higher stakes, do add up really quickly...

I used to deal poker in a past life, here's an anecdote.

We started a low limit game and everyone (10 players) bought in for 60$ - 100$. Over the course of the next hour no one rebought and no new players came in. It was a pretty average game, no one was really 'hot'. After an hour one player noticed that everyone had less money than when the game started (even players that only won hands). He got up and left and I never saw him again.

We took a 5 + 1 rake (1 for jackpot) per hand. 40 hands an hour. 240$ removed from the table in that time span. Basically taking ~3 players money off of the table an hour.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#372

Post by wussboy »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #155
sebmellen wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then the cycle of stigmatization begins again… Almost as if there is a purpose to it. Is stigmatization always an objectively bad thing? I suppose it depends on your frame of reference. I don’t think any person should be stigmatized for what they do, but certain activities may well deserve it. I suppose that’s also a recurrent theme in the New Testament. One thing I think ought to be stigmatized more is video gam…

I was 'cured' from videogames by meaningful interesting job. Once they kicks in, games become much less attractive. I still play some titles sometimes that feed my SciFi or History interests, like MassEffect or Ck2/TotalWar, but I don't enjoy them like I used to.

I experienced something similar, but never realized anyone else might as well. Thanks for writing this.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#373

Post by Dma54rhs »

brabel wrote: post #232
Dma54rhs wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is not taking monetary advantage of lonely men who most likely never have normal human relationships not immoral? People spending money on these things are not your average Joe's. The whole idea is morally corrupt and onlyfans and the like are doing it on scale now.

If those men (and women, I am sure) didn't have porn and onlyfans, they might not have anything at all to replace those. I don't think that's immoral. Both parties benefit, even if one benefits more than the other.

This sounds like libertarian talking point about business, I don't think it suits very well into the discussion.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#374

Post by psychlops »

"The company said Tina did not report the racial slur and it was not detected by the site's moderation system because it was pluralised."

Drat! If only there were some way a moderation system could detect these clever variations. Hackers are always one step ahead with pluralization.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#375

Post by [deleted] »

12ian34 wrote: post #258
Bayart wrote: post #190

Who knew a site which thrives on abolishing all personal boundaries in digital prostitution would have problems. You can't expect customers to be courteous and professional with you if the product is sex, all the more so if you're leveraging the illusion of a social relationship. It's a one or the other proposition. There's no in-between, there's no picking both. The entire thing is schizophrenic.

> You can't expect customers to be courteous and professional with you if the product is sex Whatever the product, even if there is no product, one should expect others to be courteous and professional and sex "workers" (I do believe it's real work, yes) deserve to expect this just as much as others - it's just a shame that so many men (not always, but generally) let them down so much.

[deleted]

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#376

Post by anotherman554 »

Telemakhos wrote: post #332
NateEag wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At a guess, because his wife is a human and gets to make her own decisions?

There was a time when family members intervened when they saw loved ones engaging in self-harm. This husband is watching his wife expose herself to trauma so great that she feels compelled to seek therapy, a therapy provided by the same corporation that is profiting off her trauma. The easy conclusion is that the corporation provides this therapy to keep the traumatized people who drive the company's profits from qui…

"There was a time when family members intervened when they saw loved ones engaging in self-harm."

Some people would call removing you loved one's agency to make their own decisions abuse.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#377

Post by echelon »

tut-urut-utut wrote: post #239
toyg wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the titles sound so much more vulgar in Dutch than they do in English to me. It's the other way around: you're less emotionally connected to your second language. You're not phased by the most scurrilous elements of English, because of a combination of factors (like the way your brain processes a second language, and the fact that you did not grow up in a native English culture). Whereas you have a primary connectio…

This is so much true. It's almost like swearing in English is not swearing at all, even in semi-formal context. You can tell the worst swear in English you can think of, and it just sounds harmless compared to swearing in local language.

I'd posit English doesn't have swear words anymore.

I'm a native English speaker and I've noticed that swearing no longer feels like a big deal. Our media and online discourse are saturated with the worst swears our language has to bear, to the point none of it hits with gravity.

I also think some of it has to do with changing generational attitudes. Millennials and Gen Z use swearing as friendly banter. You can call your casual friend a "fucking asshole", and as long as you're smiling and laughing, it's an endearing gesture. And if it were truly meant as a jab, it doesn't even sting.

The only words you can't (and shouldn't!) say are racial epithets. Those are untouchable. It's almost like what swear words themselves felt like when I was a child and knew I would be punished for saying "shit" or "damn".

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#378

Post by underseacables »

What I think it’s going to be more interesting is the personal responsibility aspect. In ten or fifteen years from now, when only fans content starts coming up as these folks are applying for regular jobs in the workforce, pursuing political office, etc. I expect many will claim that they were groomed and forced to do it. That is to say, I don’t think young people today really appreciate what they are doing and how having an OF is going to affect their life going forward.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#379

Post by Dumblydorr »

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…

Do you think children should be spending their allowance money on porn? That's surely helpful for OF's bottom line but I question the ramifications of selling our children's sexuality to a few capitalist coders.

Why is it bad? First, teaching children to monetize and sexualize in a capitalistic system, rather than how they evolved which is a more personal and toned down sexual experience. Their psyche is developing, their habits from teenage time will carry forward and affect their only life. It's too risky to gamble on our society's minds by letting any company sell whatever they like to children.

Second, do we want young people wasting their limited money on this content? There's a lot of free things, even if someone is 18, why should they be giving away money for what they can get for free? Is that a sound financial habit?

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#380

Post by ramraj07 »

google234123 wrote: post #108
ramraj07 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why you should always report both mean and median!

Even if there is a large skew, the mean and median will be often still be pretty close together. Especially with a large sample size.

If it’s somewhat Gaussian or normal sure. But if it’s a different distribution then this isn’t true at all.
Post reply on HN