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

391–400 of 878 posts

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#391

Post by _the_inflator »

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…

Human reward system is magically and weird at the same time. To what extremes some visuals and sounds can bring people is fascinating.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#393

Post by AtlasBarfed »

andrelaszlo wrote: post #347
paxys wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vast majority of people are also not paying OnlyFans.

9.4% of men in an official Swedish study from 2017 said they have paid for sexual services (0.5% of women). It's a minority but still almost 1/10. I can only imagine that OnlyFans has normalized this behavior a lot since then. There's also the narrative that people on these platforms are choosing to do this because they make a lot of money, and that it's less problematic than the rest of the porn industry somehow. I'…

Ah the slippery slope of distinguishing dating vs pay for sex.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#394

Post by cruffle_duffle »

paxys wrote: post #299
PUSH_AX wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easy to say this without knowing what is suffering as a result.

What is suffering as a result?

The all important 99.99% uptime with a P99.9 request latency of 10ms globally? As you know, porn sites have a strict SLA that not even AWS has to meet.

…but as others pointed out there I’m sure there is an army of contractors that don’t factor into any headcount figure. Which doesn’t at all subtract from the insane revenue per employee figure.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#395

Post by flir »

lazide wrote: post #343
samtho wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Supposing the premise that these things were entirely unhelpful to society, I would argue that the obscenity specifically is not what makes these things unhelpful.

Then what was?

Not OP, but it is possible for something to be both "obscene" and "helpful" (maybe we should say "of value"?) Say... footage of Hiroshima? Or the liberation of concentration camps? I'd say those are examples of things that are both obscene and have value.

So I think you're looking for another property those videos have in common. It might be closely related to obscenity, but I think it must be a bit more nuanced than that. Why are those videos valueless? (I don't know the answer).

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#396

Post by arandomusername »

GaryNumanVevo wrote: post #217
dachworker wrote: post #169

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

This is the free market, check your moral reservations at the door.

So you would have no reservations about a business selling class A drugs to kids? Free market after all.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#397

Post by cruffle_duffle »

ronsor wrote: post #362
malfist wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you assume women in gyms are trying to make money on OnlyFans?

There is a new-ish phenomenon of some women going to the gym, setting up suspiciously placed cameras, and then uploading to TikTok (or Instagram or OF) with complaints that the people in the background - who do not want to be recorded - are "staring." It is usually obvious what they're doing. It's not merely "there are women in the gym."

I’m sure that is a trend that came and went though. You can only manufacture so much of the same rage bait before it loses its potency. I’m sure this group of people moved into suspiciously placed cameras in the produce isle or maybe gas station or something.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#399

Post by AtlasBarfed »

kwhitefoot wrote: post #354
elzbardico wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Err.. count me out of this. I wouldn't deny a job for a former sex worker, but definitelly I wouldn't want to have any kind of personal relationship with one.

Could you explain why?

[flagged]

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#400

Post by standardUser »

paganel wrote: post #355
paxys wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Morals like "don't harm others" and "be nice", sure. "A woman should be modest and keep her body covered"...not really.

That's your opinion, and this wasn't about a woman wearing a dress or not, it was about women selling their sex to men in exchange for money, because this is what this is (even though the sex is virtual, it's still sex). So, yes, it is important to have morals in situations like this one and see companies like OnlyFans for what they truly are, i.e. SV-funded pimp organisations.

What precisely is wrong with consensually selling sex?
Post reply on HN