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

451–460 of 615 posts

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#451

Post by dfxm12 »

jszymborski wrote: post #440
dfxm12 wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The creators would somehow be surprised when they realised we couldn't remove content from other websites. Don't you have skin in this, too? I would expect that you would want to protect your content in much the same way a film studio protects their content when it pops up on 3rd party sites. I don't know if you're being obtuse with your wording here, but whether or not your customers realized that you can't physical…

If I'm totally honest, I never thought of it this way, but humour me this: if OF and the like are considered distributors in the traditional sense of the entertainment world, would they typically be responsible for engaging in legal disputes over unauthorized distribution? My feeble understanding of the law is that it would be more appropriate for copyright holders to sue in instances of illegal distribution. I under…

If a company gets revenue from exclusive content, they should do whatever it takes to make sure that content is exclusive. If a company gets revenue from content creators, they should do what it takes to attract and retain content creators. Whether or not the company owns the copyright in this case, based on these premises, whether that the company has the right to do it themselves, or on behalf of their content creators when they've been asked for this help, it's in the company's best interest to do it.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#452

Post by jeromenerf »

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…

There is just nothing good to expect from companies that promotes excessive porn, guns, drugs, gambling, meat, soda, … for money.

I am far from religious or straight edge, but the ways of debauchery are nothing new or surprising. There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that these are just … debauchery.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#453

Post by 8note »

dannyw wrote: post #255
Dah00n wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It has overlaps with marketing and SEO Huh, I wonder if there are tools to do A B testing on sites like Pornhub..

pornhub does this implicitly: the videos you see are the highest engaging winners.

I think YouTube lets you put multiple titles, and it'll automatically use the more engaging one

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#454

Post by ripsawridge »

wwweston wrote: post #418
emptysongglass wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I believe that making sex work illegal and driving it back underground is not helping that conversation. I never indicated either of these would be solutions. I don't believe elevating sex work to a pedestal in the cultural consciousness is right or ethical. That is primarily what I am taking issue with. It can be lucrative but the toll on young women, often very young women, can be great. It's a damaging professio…

This sounds about right. I think there's a growing consensus that making criminals of the workers doesn't help (you might lightly criminalize the buy side in some cases, but criminalizing the sell-side makes it harder to help workers who get in trouble), and I appreciate the discussion from any political corner that helps make that point. On the other hand it's also weird to me to see progressive elements talk of nor…

> perhaps like some progressives, I am not sure there is as big a difference as we'd like to believe between selling one's spring days to be a cog in any commercial operation and selling participation in sexual gratification.

There is! In the first case, you work with colleagues who may become friends, you learn how to treat people and build stronger relationships. The "cog in [a] commercial operation" quip is an abstraction. Generally, people have relationships with their peers and are not "cogs."

Whereas on the other hand, the sex worker deals with people who treat them badly precisely because they've paid to do that. They even enjoy it. This is a twisted model of human relations, and the sex worker is both the enabler of that awful exchange and has a target on his or her back.

So the progressive "view" of this thing is absolutely insane. It's constructed from a position of privilege where the reality constructed by toying with such ideas need never be encountered.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#455

Post by sebmellen »

dragonwriter wrote: post #433
sebmellen wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok..? In the case of computer games, I don't think unfettered use is a good thing. This isn't "juvenoia", I was born in and am living in this generation. The vast universe of freely available junk and time wasters available now is a radical shift from even my early childhood, when there were distractions, but they were not purposely made addictive by teams of psychologists and programmers to increase the profits of h…

> The vast universe of freely available junk and time wasters available now is a radical shift from even my early childhood, when there were distractions, but they were not purposely made addictive by teams of psychologists and programmers to increase the profits of huge corporate advertising behemoths If you were born in and living in this generation, for any living generation younger than maybe the Baby Boomers, th…

The point I'm making is that the scale of this is unprecedented. If you wanted to read comic books or watch TV or smoke cigarettes, there were effective physical limits. Yes, people ruined themselves with addictions then, too. But now, every person I know has a slot machine in their pocket they can pop out and get a dopamine hit by using. And it is never-ending.

You can binge watch or binge on social media or binge on anything, with unlimited supply. It's completely unprecedented.

I notice little compulsive ticks in myself now too — they're hard to escape. I have many friends I only contact through WhatsApp or Instagram. That pulls me into my phone and a nightmarish sea of influencer garbage every time I want to talk to someone. It sucks!

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#456

Post by LatteLazy »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #308
stared wrote: post #154

I was surprised why OnlyFans is so popular. All in all, there is no shortage of free erotic materials online ( https://observablehq.com/@stared/tree-of-reddit-sex-life for a small subset). I got an insight from "The Surprising Psychology Of OnlyFans Simps by Charisma on Command" ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auG2E53dFas ) that subscribers buy attention rather than sex .

I'm always surprised at how surprised people are that there is a market for porn. Almost no one would not be satisfied with a generic porn channel that showed random content of random ages, random body types, random genders, etc. Everyone has some criteria when it comes to porn they consume. Some people just have more specific criteria than others.

I'm a little confused by your comment: doesn't everyone get the exact porn they want by searching specifically? I don't just hit random on pornhub until I get what I want, I search for "gay twinks". Maybe straight guys don't have to learn this "skill"? :)

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#457

Post by tablespoon »

> The perpetrator then spammed more than 40 of her fans, calling them the N-word, before stealing all of her photos and posting them on a porn site....

> 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.

Wow, what a shit-tier auto-moderation system.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#458

Post by chrisjarvis »

ipnon wrote: post #413
thepasswordis wrote: post #397

Who could have possibly predicted that a company which mechanized the process of targeting and turning young teenage girls into prostitutes would have a dark side? If onlyfans happened in person, the people behind it would be in prison. They market to teenagers, and as soon as they turn 18 encourage them to prostitute themselves to men over the internet. It is a disgusting, horrible company that we should be ashamed…

You have to be 18 to sign up. It's like saying the military is a mechanized process turning young men into troops. Some people sign up for the military before they graduate high school, and gladly. There has to be some arbitrary age where a boys and girls become an adult, when they can and must accept responsibility.

That is low quality comparison.

Whether or not you agree with the high goals of the (US?) military; for a great many people it is a solid career, a role model they never had, and possibly a stepping stone out of an awful life. Also a very small percentage of these are actually fighting in infantry risking their lives.

This is much different than saying "Ooh youre 18 now, look how much money these 3 people make selling their naked videos! And there is absolutely no consequence at all to this, for you or your society!"

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#459

Post by dragonwriter »

htrp wrote: post #430
flyinglizard wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is in no way exclusive to porn. After running a B2C business for a while I realized that if, as an owner, you should be wary of some people, it needs to be your biggest, most vocal fans. They are the most emotionally attached, feeling they’ve personally invested their money, time and faith into your brand and they are the most violent when disappointed. At some point they all expect special treatment, which make…

Your vocal B2C fans go digitally nuclear on you? What B2C industry are you in?

> Your vocal B2C fans go digitally nuclear on you? What B2C industry are you in?

I've never experienced it as a target but I've seen fan rage explosions (not necessarily direct customers, depending on the particular industry, but entitled downstream fans targeting the upstream objects of fandom) in all of these non-sex-work industries:

film/television, music, video games, tabletop hobby gaming (particularly RPGs), sport, software (particularly open source), ...probably some that I am forgetting.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#460

Post by astrange »

echelon wrote: post #377
tut-urut-utut wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You haven't been to Australia I see.
Post reply on HN