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

381–390 of 878 posts

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#381

Post by latexr »

Dries007 wrote: post #43
nemothekid wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the same pipe dream as "AI content creators will take over youtube". There is no "formula" for success in the creator economy - the winners are largely random. A better way to look at it is there are 4 million humans out there trying every permutation to crack success, and ~400k actually do it. Unless you have a sufficiently advanced AI agent that is both varying it's content and it's marketing strategy to the t…

> There is no "formula" for success in the creator economy - the winners are largely random. I think that strongly depends on what you call "the creator economy". For example, on YT it's really mostly skill: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip2trao6dYw Not that I believe its easy, nor do I think AI will be super good at it, at least not before everything else also enshittifies into the habsburg-AI-powered dead interne…

> For example, on YT it's really mostly skill

I watched that video from start to finish and disagree with your conclusion. I watched it all so I could make an informed comment but regret spending those 15 minutes on it.

The author essentially made a video about a popular streamer, then went on their stream and baited them with 50$ and a video about themselves. It was literally click bait. It was so transparent that the streamer realised at the end what had happened but still decided to go along with it since it cost them nothing.

That’s just directed spam (which, by the way, is a word the author used themselves). It was one video about drivel. Granted, it’s not dissimilar from the other garbage that populates YouTube, but it also didn’t get views for being good. It’s the equivalent of video junk food. You know it, the creator knows it, yet it’s still hard to stop consuming.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#382

Post by MichaelZuo »

pfannkuchen wrote: post #368
itishappy wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This comparison is backwards. Listening to music performed in person by other humans is the natural way of things, like actually having sex with another human. Recorded music is much more like pornography.

Following that logic:

‘Reading words etched into a stone or inscribed on papyrus by other human hands is the natural way of things, like actually having sex with another human.

Reading words created via machines is much more like pornography.’

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#383

Post by itishappy »

pfannkuchen wrote: post #368
itishappy wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This comparison is backwards. Listening to music performed in person by other humans is the natural way of things, like actually having sex with another human. Recorded music is much more like pornography.

That's a fascinating perspective. I wonder if there was any pushback when recording was first introduced?

A quick search shows... of course there was!

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/06/06/the-record-eff...

https://archive.is/PDR04

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#384

Post by xyst »

paxys wrote: post #281

> The company counted an average of only 42 employees in 2023, down from 61 two years earlier. During the year, it generated $31MM in net revenue per employee (13-28x that of Amazon, Apple, Google, and Microsoft) and $15.5MM in operating profit (27-560x). This is the wildest part. One company that is proving all the "why does need 10000 engineers?" takes true.

OF revolves around a single product

AWS/GCP/Azure manage physical data centers across the globe, and includes hundreds of services/offerings on each platform.

Additionally, critical industries (hospitals, banks, airlines) often rely on these companies to be available/resilient at all times. Thus the need for increased global workforce. OF on the other hand, nobody is going to die if they can’t access the feet pics they bought for a few minutes or days.

You are not comparing the same companies.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#385

Post by vel0city »

jdasdf wrote: post #176
ht85 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am lacking empathy for those who are apparently so hooked up to the here-and-now A large amount of those people are very young, at an age where you don't really pick your options solely on their super long term consequences. Most people are going to be "stupid" in their early adulthood, failing and adjusting is a big part of it. Unfortunately, some of those decisions will stick more than others and sex work is ve…

>A large amount of those people are very young, at an age where you don't really pick your options solely on their super long term consequences. And they will continue to be if there are never any consequences. Stop bailing people out of problems they make for themselves and people will start learning to not make those problems. Human beings are not stupid machines who see others put their hand in the fire, getting b…

> Most will stop when they see others get burned, others still will stop when they get burned, and a small minority will stop once there is no hand left to burn.

And this explains how drug problems solved themselves hundreds of years ago. Good thing we've all decided to stop doing debilitating drugs after seeing the consequences of addition in the past!

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#386

Post by WhompingWindows »

dachworker wrote: post #169

Being a digital pimp is just as morally disgusting as being an irl pimp.

Let's investigate that claim. Does OF physically and emotionally abuse its creators? Does it perpetuate human trafficking? Does OF create drug addiction and use that to control its creators? Does OF force its creators to have sexual contact with potentially violent or diseased/depraved individuals?

Ask yourself, would you prefer your family members to be under an IRL pimp or run their own OF?

If you look at this realistically, OF is not nearly as morally reprehensible as an IRL pimp.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#387

Post by itishappy »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #382
pfannkuchen wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comparison is backwards. Listening to music performed in person by other humans is the natural way of things, like actually having sex with another human. Recorded music is much more like pornography.

Following that logic: ‘Reading words etched into a stone or inscribed on papyrus by other human hands is the natural way of things, like actually having sex with another human. Reading words created via machines is much more like pornography.’

Words etched in stone? Bah! Words were created for speach!

> For this invention will produce forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn to use it, because they will not practice their memory. Their trust in writing, produced by external characters which are no part of themselves, will discourage the use of their own memory within them. You have invented an elixir not of memory, but of reminding; and you offer your pupils the appearance of wisdom, not true wisdom, for they will read many things without instruction and will therefore seem to know many things, when they are for the most part ignorant and hard to get along with, since they are not wise, but only appear wise.

> - Socrates

https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=3439

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#388

Post by habinero »

k33jf33l2 wrote: post #172
habinero wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> She's a person, same as me. That line of reasoning tends to break down pretty quickly. Unless you're truly special, there are probably people out there who've done something so awful that you wouldn't date them despite the fact that they're "a person, same as me" .

You missed my point. A lot of guys act like it somehow taints someone for life or repeat all the redpill 'pair bonding' nonsense, and don't judge people on their own merits.

You're not picking out make and model of a car, you're building a relationship with another person.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#389

Post by makeitdouble »

pfannkuchen wrote: post #368
itishappy wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This comparison is backwards. Listening to music performed in person by other humans is the natural way of things, like actually having sex with another human. Recorded music is much more like pornography.

I'm not sure I follow, how is listening to music performed by another human live different from watching another human performing a sexy act live ?

The analog to actually having sex would be playing with the band on the stage.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#390

Post by habinero »

huuhee3 wrote: post #194
habinero wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Education level is less important than equality is. Marriage is traditionally a terrible bargain for women, but it was the only choice they were allowed to make. Now, they can make their money and buy property and have kids on their own. A lot of men haven't realized the era of the provider is over and dead, and they're now optional. They have to make women want to be with them, and a lot of women just aren't willing…

Good luck buying a family home as a single mom with today's property prices. Really it's a rich person thing, not available to ordinary women.

You don't need a house to have kids. Plenty of people don't and they do just fine. And if they're choosing to have a kid on their own, they've planned out finances, too. Fertility treatments aren't cheap.
Post reply on HN