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

461–470 of 878 posts

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#461

Post by tivert »

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 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.

Do you have a source for that angrily defended "fully rational reinterpretation"?

I suspect the word for what's going on is rationalization not "fully rational reinterpretation" (e.g. "This is a thing we're doing, therefore it's good because we do it. Let's reevaluate everything else to achieve that result.").

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#462

Post by ath3nd »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #243
akimbostrawman wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I wonder why that's a socially acceptable way of "selling" their body, but prostitution is not. Probably because its not the same at all. Getting naked and spreading your legs is neither as productive nor difficult as serving your country. Neither should it have the same social status.

ath3nd did not write same social status, they wrote socially acceptable. Relevant username, I guess.

I guess I meant a bit of both.

We don't give high social status to killers, thugs, murderers and hired assassins, but when it's institutionalized killing, (which is the military) that's okay? The fact that an "official" gives the word, and the victims are not citizens of your country doesn't make the military be less about killing.

There also is nothing "productive" about paying for salaries, equipment and training to a bunch of grown men in the anticipation that you have to send them to do violence to your bidding.

If the military was not under the veneer of "official", wrapping it in an "institution" and all the language of "serving your country", we'd not been able to distinguish between military, militia and armed thugs.

Yet, our society at large reveres them as some heroes and they are mainly socially acceptable.

I bet that if we had a "Department of pleasure", with ranks, hierarchies, rules, promotion paths, etc, sex workers wouldn't be as marginalized as they are now. In fact, in many civilized countries, prostitutions is both legal and taxed, and less stigmatized than it is in the US, who are too puritanical/religion influenced in their views to want it to be otherwise.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#463

Post by kubb »

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

Please someone contribute the “bad times create strong men” meme.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#464

Post by raxxorraxor »

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.

If you regard it as unsolicited information, you seem to put a judgement on it yourself. Perhaps more than the people who would just like to know. Not a requirement but it would also no be unusual in a relationship.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#465

Post by vunderba »

flyingpenguin wrote: post #358
itishappy wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I don't know about you, but I also find concerts very strange and off putting. Like, is "Denver" really a special crowd? I'm pretty sure you are doing a very staged reppeded performance but making us think its specially for us. I like things without crowd interaction, like musicals/plays, because there is no dystopian parasocial aspect to it. I am only there because the live is different than the recording.

I'm 100% with you. When people say that they go to these types of events and say things like they're "feeling the energy", I just can't understand at all. All I'm feeling is the massive amount of BTUs being emitted by humans packed in close proximity...

However, give me a good piano recital with elevated seating to be able to see the pianist hands, and I'll be there in a flash.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#466

Post by GreenWatermelon »

AshamedCaptain wrote: post #359
seper8 wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Would I be happy if after the education I paid my daughters they decide to work in public sanitation? Think honestly about it. Do you think I have anything against sanitation employees?

Bad comparison.

Public sanitation workers keep our society functioning, they're a cornerstone of civilization.

Online prostitution, on the other hand, ranges from providing 0 value, to extreme negative consequences, such as the current porn addiction epidemic, or the loneliness epidemic.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#467

Post by k33jf33l2 »

standardUser wrote: post #427
alt227 wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These things you mentioned are all still looked on negatively by some people. My grandma curses 'bastards' and children 'out of wedlock'. People still lose out on jobs for having face and neck tattoos, its in the media regularly. In exactly the same way as having an OF account, its up to the person doing these things to judge the consequences of whether they are happy with some people in the world looking down on the…

> 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…

> I don't know anyone who has been denied a job or an opportunity because of those issues.

How would they know? I suspect there's some selection bias at play here because it might not be legal to discriminate on this basis.

> (...) because they have a piecing or like to take naked photos.

That's a strawman. The discussion doesn't concern people who "like to take naked photos"; it concerns people who do it for money. Depending on your values, that can be a significant difference.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#468

Post by qingcharles »

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…

On OF the creators use private messaging sell what is known as PPV (pay-per-view). They upsell things that aren't available with the subscription, such as more intimate videos. Often they will sell custom created content. I know one woman who charges $800 for a single custom photo.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#469

Post by whoopdedo »

qingcharles wrote: post #456
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…

This view isn't matched by the stats. I have a friend who is a successful OF model and only a fraction of one percent of her subscribers ever DM her. A lot of them subscribe, see what they want and then immediately delete their accounts. There's no apparent relationship between her fans and her, for the most part.

>subscribe ... and then immediately delete their accounts

Sounds like credit card fraud to me. Bots using stolen cards to scrape OF content. Also easily verifies that the number works before attempting a pricier purchase.

Post reply on HN