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

501–510 of 615 posts

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#501

Post by oftwjul2021 »

toyg wrote: post #366
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…

> It's a damaging profession both to its consumers and to its creators With age and life experience, I'm actually finding it increadibly difficult to agree with this statement. Sex work might be damaging for many providers, that's for sure (although, as others mentioned, so are other professions deemed essential); but damaging for consumers, I don't know. If it were so bad, it wouldn't be "the oldest profession". (Ma…

> Sex work might be damaging for many providers, that's for sure (although, as others mentioned, so are other professions deemed essential); but damaging for consumers, I don't know.

As Online sex work as increasingly adopted the 'influencer' mentality to it's marketing, I think it is damaging to consumers. Maybe you think things like NLP don't have an impact on you, but they certainly do on others. As other comments on this thread have mentioned many of the ads/content have become a lot more targeted.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#502

Post by standardUser »

vlunkr wrote: post #42
throwmeawaydddy wrote: post #33

Fire up the throwaway! Not 100% related to the article, but directly related. I worked as developer for a product in the same niche ("democratizing adult content"). I spent almost 2 years working on the frontend, devops, and building out the analytics engine (all pre-covid). Anyway, on to the comment at hand. We had a small number of users compared to OnlyFans (when I left, there were about 20K active content creator…

This summarizes my opinion on OF. I'm not sure if it's unethical or predatory, but I'm quite sure that most people posting content there are going to regret it very soon.

Why are you "quite sure"? What are the consequences of having naked photos of yourself out there in the world that would cause most people to regret it?

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#503

Post by anotherman554 »

monkeybutton wrote: post #435
anotherman554 wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"There was a time when family members intervened when they saw loved ones engaging in self-harm." Some people would call removing you loved one's agency to make their own decisions abuse.

I agree that the question further up did come off as rather paternalistic in a bad way but their central point has merit: by continuing to support his wife's decision to work in that environment, doesn't that make him an enabler for the abuse?

I think your question presumes among other things that the wife has better career options and/or no need for money, or we have a better idea than the wife what career is best for her.

I don't think any of us have any idea what the facts of the situation is. So it's not clear to me anyone is "enabling" anything.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#504

Post by emptysongglass »

jasonlotito wrote: post #490
emptysongglass wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you read my original comment upstream? If not, please understand the position I'm coming from first. My wife is a sex worker. She has been for five years, four of those together with me. Before I met her, I was a part of a community of sex workers I had known since I was in my twenties so add 5 years more of direct experience with the lives and minds of those workers. My friend who has worked as a domme for the…

> If not, please understand the position I'm coming from first. This doesn't change anything I said. Nor change the fact that your attitude is part of the problem. You are not unique in your point of view, but having that point of view doesn't mean your opinions are immediately valid. > I do not make this observation as one uninitiated. But you are. You are just an observer. You are not a SW yourself. > I write with…

I encourage you to read and listen to the stories of sex workers who are speaking their experience directly. Here's a former sex worker I really like on TikTok who is part of a wave of Gen Z'ers who are pushing back on the narrative that sex work is somehow liberating, good, or healthy. [1]

[1] https://www.tiktok.com/@profitfromtrauma/video/6926281617094...

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#505

Post by paulvorobyev »

tharne wrote: post #391
scrollaway wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> creating the problems for yourself and then heroically prevailing over them, how very commendable. Such an arrogant comment. Not only did you completely miss the point of the GP's post, but you're showcasing a bunch of disdain for people simply making mistakes and fixing them. I have no words. None that abide by the guidelines, at least.

> Such an arrogant comment. It's not an arrogant comment, it's common sense. It's much better not to do dumb things than to do dumb things and then try to fix it. Yes, it's good to fix one's mistakes, but that doesn't mean we should be celebrating those mistakes. It reminds me of George W. Bush bragging about the success of the "surge" many years into the Iraq war, and I remember thinking, "What a man-child, this guy…

>It's much better not to do dumb things than to do dumb things and then try to fix it. Yes, it's good to fix one's mistakes, but that doesn't mean we should be celebrating those mistakes.

But nobody was celebrating the mistake. The comment was literally commending someone's resolution of that mistake.

The assertion you're making/supporting is incredibly arrogant because it implies that living a life without mistakes is possible. As cliche as it sounds, nobody is perfect. It is not possible to live life without error.

In other words "Just don't make mistakes" is not advice: it is ego-tripping.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#506

Post by Dracophoenix »

larksimian wrote: post #218
tshaddox wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but how is that different than any other way someone might trade their labor for money (but wouldn’t if they didn’t need the money)?

Putting a monetary value on an activity that otherwise doesn't have it fundamentally alters how people think about that activity whether they want to or not. The best example is selling items in MMOs versus achieving them in game. If you put a $100 price tag on a weapon that otherwise takes 200 hours to grind it will ruin the satisfaction people that ground for it got from the item. This happens... subconsciously and…

We already commodify human interactions. Dating for starters (and arranged marriages before that). You could run the gamut of dates on your own or pay a matchmaker to set you up with a guaranteed relationship (or your money back). There's rarely a point to doing something the hard way if a successful shortcut is available, so long as all involved understand what they're getting out of it.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#507

Post by edmundsauto »

dragonwriter wrote: post #469
edmundsauto wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds like a utilitarian argument. Unfortunately, that means the weights of the increased harm vs. decreased harm are what determines the morality. And those are arbitrary. one could believe it is low harm for a young person to use OF, but massive harm to be in the traditional porn industry, and conclude that OF is a net plus. Ie, this argument is circular and based on preconceptions rather than a critical exam…

> This sounds like a utilitarian argument. Unfortunately, that means the weights of the increased harm vs. decreased harm are what determines the morality. And those are arbitrary. Well, yeah and with a deontological argument, chosen moral axioms are what determine the morality, which are equally arbitrary. All arguments of “should” have arbitrary values at their root.

OP was explicitly making a utilitarian argument, one that did not present relative weights or other assumptions about population size. On that, it failed to make its point, which is what my comment was about.

If you wish to say that most philosophical arguments are people reinforcing their previously held beliefs, I would not argue with you.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#508

Post by sangnoir »

gadders wrote: post #356
Khaine wrote: post #296

I’m not anti-sex or anti-sex work, but I think onlyfans is evil. They have a business model, that is perfected to extract as much money from whales as possible. Performers appear to have ‘relationships’ with their subscribers, encourage them to tip, buy ‘customs’, and ‘engage’ with them. These sad lonely sexless men spend all their money on this shit. It consumes them, until they are out of money, then it destroys th…

They have monetised incels.

Hmm... I'm looking for a cofounder for a (stealth) teledildonics hardware/VR/SaaS subscription platform.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#509

Post by tarkin2 »

throwmeawaydddy wrote: post #33

Fire up the throwaway! Not 100% related to the article, but directly related. I worked as developer for a product in the same niche ("democratizing adult content"). I spent almost 2 years working on the frontend, devops, and building out the analytics engine (all pre-covid). Anyway, on to the comment at hand. We had a small number of users compared to OnlyFans (when I left, there were about 20K active content creator…

So do your users assume their fans won’t make copies, somehow, of the content and share it?

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#510

Post by mywittyname »

ramraj07 wrote: post #380
google234123 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if there is a large skew, the mean and median will be often still be pretty close together. Especially with a large sample size.

If it’s somewhat Gaussian or normal sure. But if it’s a different distribution then this isn’t true at all.

What use is median in a Pareto distribution (which this phenomenon falls under)? From what I can tell median is useless, I can't think of a use case, and the internet fails to give me one. Average gives you an expected value to work with. Median though, can be worthless in a pareto distribution where the 90% of the value is in the top 10% of the distribution.

I feel like people have this default reaction to assert that median is as or more important than mean. When, in reality, median is useful for in only specific distributions.

I think people say "median", but what they are really interested are the moments of the distribution. Median just is a key moment in Guassian distributions, other distributions have different important moments, and median isn't necessarily one of them.

Post reply on HN