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

511–520 of 878 posts

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#511

Post by deepsun »

afavour wrote: post #441
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.

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…

I think people would still prefer "real" content, same way as they prefer live streams to recordings for some reason (hey, handpicked recordings are objectively better!). Same way as people want "real wood", and "real leather", even when there're objectively better alternatives.

That said, people only need to _believe_ it's real.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#512

Post by almatabata »

alt227 wrote: post #413
almatabata wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Any healthy society would ban all OF type content immediately on national security threat grounds By this logic we should ban all extra marital relationships as well. Add to that mandatory DNA tests for all kids just in case. People will do things in private that they do not want known. No amount of legislation will fix it.

I agree with what you are saying, and people should definitely be allowed to do whatever they like in private as long as it is legal and consentual. That said, OF is not private, and that kind of negates your point.

Aren't some of the interactions on OF private chats? Kind of like sexting and caming? Let us say you limit it all to one on one private interactions, it still causes the same issues you mention.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#513

Post by jeffhuys »

cruffle_duffle wrote: post #397
ronsor wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You’re sure… well… not sure enough I guess. It still happens a lot, at least where I go

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#514

Post by knodi123 »

Demiurge wrote: post #450
antimemetics wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Firstly: The Plato quote is fake - It was crafted by a student, Kenneth John Freeman, for his Cambridge dissertation published in 1907.

Secondly: Hesiod was right, his culture no longer exists. ;-)

Thirdly: Yep, that quote is fake too. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/10/22/world-end/

Can't find any sources on that fourth one, but I suggest that the British Medical Journal might want to update their article.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#515

Post by tivert »

prmoustache wrote: post #207
braza wrote: post #118

Not a moralistic take, but one issue that interests me is the second-order impacts associated with the long tail of producers in OF who do not make a career from it. With traditional adult entertainment, creators are aware of the social ramifications (e.g., social stigma, familial ostracism, difficulty dealing with the future, and so on), and there is a decent theoretical economic framework to measure that. I am not…

OTOH this is not the same as "VHS" porn of the past decades. A few decades ago, there weren't that many "productions", performers were much fewer and some porn performers name were known by anyone, regardless if you had seen porn with them staring or not. A person getting out of the business and trying to make a new career would have a high chance of meeting people, especially men, in real life who might have seen at…

> Nowadays pornhub and onlyfans are flooded by wannabee independent performers. Even the most addicted to porn can't possibly follow and keep track of more than a tiny subset of performers. So there is a good chance you can still have a career alongside it or switch from OF to a non sex related career easily.

Your model of "social ramifications" seems to assume no one ever talks to anyone else, which is dead wrong. So to see problems, the only thing that needs to happen is one person needs to see their porn out of maybe the 1000 people who could recognize the performer IRL, then a rumor starts and a significant fraction of the 1000 (and more people besides) find out. No fame required.

Then the problem can balloon if another person out of that 1000 is angry with the performer, and decides to dox them by creating a website or posting that explicitly outs them to anyone who searches their name on Google.

Then, on top of that, there's all the facial recognition tech that's floating around, which is basically a "go strait to jail, to not pass go" thing.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#516

Post by makeitdouble »

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.

In this day and age it won't matter much.

You can hire anyone and have them target of allegations from colleagues. Them having a higher social status won't really help, we're post #metoo and there has been way too many cases of well regarded people being predatory. Whether the employee had some arguable past jobs, you'll have to do due diligence and get to the bottom of it either way.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#517

Post by bazoom42 »

Demiurge wrote: post #450
antimemetics wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The Socrates quote is certainly fake. Are the other quotes from the same source?

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#518

Post by jayd16 »

mudita wrote: post #497
ehnto wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parasocial relationships don't require interaction, you could just watch a twitch streamer a lot. I think if we defined it by requiring interaction we would underestimate the percieved impact of these social phenomenon.

It not only doesn’t require interaction, the lack of interaction is what makes is parasocial.

So like, movies are more para social because they have less interaction?

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#519

Post by danudey »

deepsun wrote: post #508
ehnto wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parasocial relationships don't require interaction, you could just watch a twitch streamer a lot. I think if we defined it by requiring interaction we would underestimate the percieved impact of these social phenomenon.

But then what's the difference between live streaming and recordings? There's some magic in live streams -- people prefer to watch boring live streams instead of hand-picked recorded videos of best games/conversations/jokes.

Is this true, or anecdotal?

Personally, every time I decide "I'm going to check out this streamer's live stream" I always end up joining at some point where they're getting set up, they're taking a break, they're reading chat, they're eating soup... I've never actually tuned into a livestream I'm actually interested in.

Meanwhile, RTGame was one of the first gaming content creators I ever subscribed to, and all of his content is his twitch livestreams edited down to actually interesting clips or sections.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#520

Post by knodi123 »

tjs8rj wrote: post #300
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…

We’re the cohort putting our hand on the stove to remember you get burned. Vices like gambling, obscenity, prostitution, drugs, etc are banned or heavily controlled societies over because they have significant negative cultural effects. “Why do YOU care what other people do in their private lives?” was always a stupid justification: if everyone in your community is addicted to vices, that DOES affect me.

A better justification is, "prove that it's actually harmful using sources other than your gut", and "suggest a method for controlling it that doesn't almost immediately devolve into puritan witch-hunting, racism, and/or misogyny."
Post reply on HN