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

371–380 of 878 posts

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#371

Post by isolli »

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #327

> 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 - h…

From the article:

> In many cases, the responses are actually written by a member of the creator’s extended team – remember, many of these creators are now multi-million dollar enterprises, and its obviously impossible for creators such as Bhad Bhabie to engage in detailed and personalized conversations with their scores of VIP subscribers – though this alleged subterfuge has resulted in some legal action.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#372

Post by sirspacey »

71bw wrote: post #117
renewiltord wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but Rick Rubin is always involved and Max Martin has written a hell of a lot of megahits. Makes you think.

>Rick Rubin Dear God, I've looked into his discography[1] and nearly every album I think of as great from the last 30 years is there. Seasons in the Abyss, The Life of Pablo, 99 Problems, SOAD self-titled + Toxicity, The Geto Boys self-titled, Licensed to Ill... Is this man a hit printer or something? Really shows that Metallica went to him with Death Magnetic after the joke called St. Anger lol [1] https://en.wikipe…

His skill is helping creators do their best work. It’s a rare one.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#373

Post by philwelch »

samtho wrote: post #333
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.

Yet humans have fared mostly fine as a whole with even a moderate level of those things, legal or not, consistently happening throughout history and cultures. The biggest problem we have is when these vices are driven underground so the vice itself is conflated with the additional risk of having to put one’s self in a dangerous situation to engage with it. Looking at western culture (the only one I feel confident spe…

There’s still value in curbing many of these vices. Smoking is a good example. You can smoke, but you can’t advertise cigarettes, you need to be an adult to buy them, you can’t smoke them indoors, and we’ve all been subjected to propaganda from birth about how smoking is bad for you. If you have all of that in place (which took decades for tobacco and now people are trying to ban it in some places), you can have legal vices.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#374

Post by prmoustache »

lupusreal wrote: post #334
prmoustache wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Eww, asking your prospective partners about their personal history? That's like so creepy!!

If the number of ex or sexual intercourses is the one of the first questions you ask when you are in the "prospective" state, yes that is creepy. And a huge warning sign that you are probably a toxic person.

I don't care about ex partners. I'd rather know if my sexuality is compatible with that person and if that person is comfortable/confident with their sexual life.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#375

Post by sulandor »

agumonkey wrote: post #350
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…

The shocking part is how new generation have a fully rational reinterpretation of all this, they call it "ethical sex". It's beautiful to them (probably in contrast to the boat loads of issues IRL social and intimate relationships can bring with them). And anything not aligned with their view causes a lot of angry arguments.

[flagged]

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#376

Post by ath3nd »

broken-kebab wrote: post #244
TeMPOraL wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even coming from mainstream religions, that's annoyingly knee-jerk. Sure, prostitution is shameful and sinful and whatnot, but what about maliciously lying to your neighbor, trying to get rich off their misfortune? Even from a mainstream religious perspective, marketing gives prostitution a run for its money, and outside that framework, arguably it's less shameful to do OF than to be a "regular" influencer, or go int…

It's whataboutism, isn't it? It surely hypocritical when someone only fights other's sin while ignoring own (and one mainstream religion has a special piece about it - speck in a brother's eye). But my harmful behavior still doesn't make your harmful behavior good, and vice versa

> But my harmful behavior still doesn't make your harmful behavior good, and vice versa

In principle I agree.

We have a society praising a soldier for killing and risks losing limbs and life (basically selling his body) during military service, but demonizing a sex worker.

This society needs to take a good hard look in the mirror. We have people admonishing sex work and marijuana use, while its most "successful" members are in arms dealing, fossil fuels, workers exploitation (amazon), and gambling with the livelihoods of people (banks/wall street).

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#377

Post by ghastmaster »

jappgar wrote: post #277
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…

The problem here is that ceratain members of our society think sexuality is immoral and that sex performers deserve ostracism. The idea that someone shouldn't be hired for a job because they have/had an OF is puritanism plain and simple. I expect that fewer people actually care about the "morality" and simply want to use morals as a weapon against women in the workplace.

There's an inherent risk to hiring someone who has sexualized themselves. False allegations or true allegations are more likely to arise that put the employer in legal jeopardy.

It adds risk that another hire may not have.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#378

Post by hungie »

lynx23 wrote: post #138
Freak_NL wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, you would seriously hold that against a potential mate if they were open about it and honest about their motivations?

Er, yes. Without a question. Would you date an ex-prostitue?

If we connected, why not? I guess I'd make sure we both had clean sti panels before engaging in sex, but I'd do that with any partner.

"They used their dick or vagina to make money" is not any different to me than "they used their brain or hands to make money".

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#379

Post by prmoustache »

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…

The fact these tools and some creeps exist doesn't mean your actual coworkers in your career will use those to find you.

And more importantly, said creeps would be the one who would have an inappropriate behavior in the workplace regardless of the tools they have at their disposition.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#380

Post by prmoustache »

defrost wrote: post #215
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…

> 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. I have no comment on the morals and ethics but as far as modern technology goes; most if not all of OnlyFans finds its way to darkweb | pirate | hoarder megasites where there's always a few because-we-can obsessed techlords training facial recognition, gait recognition, and seeding AI generated V…

> We can be certain that any woman with an OnlyFans portfolio will face that being dragged up later in their life if they are at all slightly public.

I fail to see how it would be limited to women with an OF portfolio and not any female with an instagram/tiktok/facebook/linkedin account? Deepfaking is an online abuse problem that can reach anyone who has a public photo online on the internet.

Post reply on HN