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

541–550 of 878 posts

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#541

Post by lupusreal »

habinero wrote: post #388
k33jf33l2 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> She's a person, same as me. That line of reasoning tends to break down pretty quickly. Unless you're truly special, there are probably people out there who've done something so awful that you wouldn't date them despite the fact that they're "a person, same as me" .

You missed my point. A lot of guys act like it somehow taints someone for life or repeat all the redpill 'pair bonding' nonsense, and don't judge people on their own merits. You're not picking out make and model of a car, you're building a relationship with another person.

> redpill 'pair bonding' nonsense,

Lol wtf

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#543

Post by BizarroLand »

paxys wrote: post #290
kylehotchkiss wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

16 states still have minimum wage at $7.25/hour https://www.ncsl.org/labor-and-employment/state-minimum-wage... and I presume there still exist employers who don’t offer much more.

Federal minimum wage is largely an irrelevant number. below minimum wage (under the table), so their wage would remain low even if the government raised the number.

It seems to be 1.3% of all hourly workers:

https://usafacts.org/articles/minimum-wage-america-how-many-...

However, that figure doesn't include the people who make a dime over minimum wage. 23.3% of American households earn less than $35,000/yr

https://www.statista.com/statistics/203183/percentage-distri...

This number would decrease dramatically if our national minimum wage was raised to $15 or more per hour.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#544

Post by Der_Einzige »

almatabata wrote: post #340
highcountess wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> 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.

Requiring mandatory DNA tests (I.e the anti France) would be amazing! Men shouldn’t be on the hook to raise kids which aren’t there’s, and the men who is the biological father should be required by the state to do their job.

Banning infidelity is another thing entierly, but DNA parental tests are the bomb.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#545

Post by mensetmanusman »

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 has been true since television. My parents have nearly zero community but watch TV all day.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#546

Post by pfdietz »

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #393
andrelaszlo wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

9.4% of men in an official Swedish study from 2017 said they have paid for sexual services (0.5% of women). It's a minority but still almost 1/10. I can only imagine that OnlyFans has normalized this behavior a lot since then. There's also the narrative that people on these platforms are choosing to do this because they make a lot of money, and that it's less problematic than the rest of the porn industry somehow. I'…

Ah the slippery slope of distinguishing dating vs pay for sex.

> slippery slope

An excellent porn star name.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#547

Post by paulryanrogers »

whoopdedo wrote: post #469
qingcharles wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

IME testers do the minimum to get a purchase go / no-go then immediately drop off. They don't bother trying to automate clean up.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#548

Post by paulryanrogers »

taikobo wrote: post #525
alsetmusic wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I’ve subscribed for one month to two different creators just to check the content. Neither was interesting enough to maintain a subscription. I don’t think the described behavior sounds nefarious.

The part that they delete their account immediately afterwards?

Perhaps to avoid unintended rebill or make it less likely for a loved one to discover it.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#549

Post by mensetmanusman »

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…

Marriage rates are down nearly 80% and it matches exactly the decline of births. So the slippery slope did work on reducing population growth!

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#550

Post by lupusreal »

benterix wrote: post #317
broken-kebab wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those rules aren't taken from the thin air though. It's really easy to argue that sexual gedonism is detrimental to society, and its online incarnation is even more so: as any addiction it steals productive time from people's lives, it puts hormones over culture which patently breeds violence, it leads to social atomization, and consequently to mental issues (which means violence again), economically bad on a level c…

> as any addiction it steals productive time from people's lives, it leads to social atomization, and consequently to mental issues (which means violence again), economically bad on a level comparable to fentanyl imports, and the list goes on. Well the same could be said of social media, mobile phones, netflix binge, computer games (although I don't agree with the violence part). So why single out sex then?

Use and particularly overuse of those things is definitely a relationship deal killer for many people. Ask around with the women you know what they think about men who spend most of their time playing video games.
Post reply on HN