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

441–450 of 878 posts

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#441

Post by afavour »

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.

The circle of life. People said the same thing about Playboy when it first came out, about Internet porn when it first came out… People have been “falling in love” with strippers for as long as strippers have existed. In many ways OF feels like a positive step because it allows the removal of toxic middlemen that stand between the model and their customer.

To my mind the bigger issue is how much of it is a total scam. OF models offshoring their DM responses so their clients think they’re having conversations with the model when it’s actually some dude half the world away. Or using AI for the same, which I’m sure is increasing exponentially.

It’s going to be interesting to see what happens when AI is able to generate on demand video/photo and chat that’s realistic enough to satisfy an online client. If people are specifically told it’s AI will they be content with that? Or will they still want an actual real human? We're not exactly rational creatures at the best of times so it’ll be fascinating to see. We’ll have gone from the phone sex lines of yore, where you are interacting with a real human even though they’re definitely not the human you’re imagining in your head, to an AI video chat where you’re seeing exactly what you want but there’s nothing behind it.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#442

Post by xlix »

hungie wrote: post #356
raxxorraxor wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it also is quite a special demographic, which is hard to nail down. There are a lot of people that don't have many social contacts but would never pay anyone for only fans. Perhaps you need to have a special character trait to be able to use such services. But while there are successful people on only fans with either more or less clothes on, the vast majority of creators probably sell their dignity for a few…

This framing, "sell their dignity", is your moral judgement (coming from your cultural, religious, or some other) background. I don't see it as any less dignified than any other work. You sell your labor to someone who pays you less than the value it produces. Now, if you want to argue that median creators get payed only a tiny fraction of their time, and like Twitch/YouTube it's a losing game for most, then we're on…

[flagged]

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#443

Post by random9749832 »

hungie wrote: post #101
binary132 wrote: post #86

[flagged]

Porn is fine. Sex has been a part of our social fabric for longer than we've been human. Obviously, there exists a lot of exploitation in porn, but performers who enjoy doing it and can support themselves with it on a platform like of? More power to them.

I can go on any known porn site right now in Incognito and the front page is full of cuck, incest and trans. We aren't just talking about intercourse we are talking about certain acts of depravity being pushed into the collective conscious.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#444

Post by raxxorraxor »

hungie wrote: post #356
raxxorraxor wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it also is quite a special demographic, which is hard to nail down. There are a lot of people that don't have many social contacts but would never pay anyone for only fans. Perhaps you need to have a special character trait to be able to use such services. But while there are successful people on only fans with either more or less clothes on, the vast majority of creators probably sell their dignity for a few…

This framing, "sell their dignity", is your moral judgement (coming from your cultural, religious, or some other) background. I don't see it as any less dignified than any other work. You sell your labor to someone who pays you less than the value it produces. Now, if you want to argue that median creators get payed only a tiny fraction of their time, and like Twitch/YouTube it's a losing game for most, then we're on…

You are correct, my value judgements are very likely influenced by my cultural background and experience, as are yours.

I do live in a country where sex work is legal. There is still a darker sides to the trade. I think customers do lose even more dignity. Or someone who does sex work because it is "empowering" compared to someone that is forced into it.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#445

Post by standardUser »

alt227 wrote: post #438
standardUser wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These things you mentioned are all still looked on negatively by some people. I don't know anyone who has been denied a job or an opportunity because of those issues. I also don't know anyone who has been denied an opportunity because they made adult content. Does it happen? Absolutley. Is it crippling to the point of ostracization? Not even close. If anything, being able to filter out people who would look down on…

There was a big news story about this happening literally the other day https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/tiktok-tattooed-wom... > Is it crippling to the point of ostracization? Nobody is arguing that it is, I think you are taking this a bit too far. All anybody has said is that some people have a dim view of sex work, thats it, and its true. Stop trying to extrapolate and assume further than the point in ques…

I don't know about you, but my life is too short to associate with troglodytes. Especially when there are so many amazing open-minded, open-hearted weirdos out there I can spend my days with.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#446

Post by IncreasePosts »

prmoustache wrote: post #367
quibono wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess I fail to see why one should be open in the first place if this isn't going to be reciprocated by your partner.

There is a difference between solicited and unsolicited information. In my experience people who can't live with someone without asking them the number of past partners are the toxic ones.

Maybe - or maybe they just have different viewpoints on sex than you.

Do you think it would be okay to ask someone how many kittens they have stomped to death in the past? And, if the answer is greater than zero, to break off the relationship?

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#447

Post by jappgar »

ghastmaster wrote: post #377
jappgar wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"sexualised themselves"

I would say there's a greater risk hiring sanctimonious prudes.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#448

Post by raxxorraxor »

paxys wrote: post #325
raxxorraxor wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is what I meant, I understood you comment as "paying for OnlyFans" is human nature. I would dispute that as a general statement because I believe it is a very special demographic that does that.

Sure, but that "special demographic" has stayed consistent throughout human history. Which is why this entire market has existed for a similar period.

I would understand human nature to mean that it affects every human, but sure, after that definition I guess it remains some form of constant at least.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#449

Post by ec109685 »

tennisflyi wrote: post #7

Seminal article (I guess), https://xsrus.com/the-economics-of-onlyfans > It’s just as easy to imagine demand for the “real thing” going down due to the emergence of more substitutes as it is to imagine the premium for parasocial authenticity going up. And yet only Generative AI “creators” will truly do whatever “you” want and only for you. And unlike real ones, they speak in every language and are available at any ti…

It’s already fake. The creator is not really into you and your interactions are with some dude in an offshore call center, not intimate chats with the person you think you’re having. It’s ridiculous this is considered okay by the platform.

Unlike something like professional wrestling (that is make believe real content), the AI equivalent to only fans seems like it will be trivial to make.

And as the article pointed out, part of why onlyfans exploded in popularity is that other sources of free porn dried up, so it shows there is a substitution aspect where if something better / cheaper comes along, people will switch to it.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#450

Post by Demiurge »

antimemetics wrote: post #428
agumonkey wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Every new generation is worse than the one before them

Dtaisk Afai. Cof Lemma, 19:1, 2, 549-552 / https://www.jstor.org/stable/25414613

Let me first give you four quotations.

Firstly: “Our youth loves luxury, has bad manners, disregards authority, and has no respect whatsoever for age. Our children today are tyrants; they do not get up when an elderly man enters the room—they talk back to their parents—they are just very bad.”

Secondly: “I no longer have any hope for the future of our country if today’s youth should ever become the leaders of tomorrow, because this youth is unbearable, reckless—just terrible.”

Thirdly: “Our world has reached a critical stage; children no longer listen to their parents; the end of the world cannot be far away.”

Finally: “This youth is rotten from the very bottom of their hearts; the young people are malicious and lazy; they will never be as youth happened to be before. Today’s youth will not be able to maintain our culture.”

The first quote came from Socrates (470–399 B.C.); the second from Hesiod (circa 720 B.C.); the third from an Egyptian priest about 2,000 years ago; and the last was recently discovered on clay pots in the ruins of Old Babylon, which are more than 3,000 years old.

Post reply on HN