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

61–70 of 615 posts

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#61

Post by HWR_14 »

SilverRed wrote: post #45
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…

Have you considered the alternative that this is not an evil which you are unable to control but just another way of living / thinking of sexual content? There is nothing inherently evil about this stuff so why is it terrible that it is becoming more accepted/common? If in 30 years we live in a society where people post nudes like they do facebook posts, is there anything wrong about this? Could you describe the harm…

> If in 30 years we live in a society where people post nudes like they do facebook posts, is there anything wrong about this?

Well, a main issue is society isn't a monolith. Some people might not want to post nudes (just like some people don't want a FB account) but feel societally pressured to do so. Some people, specifically people hiring or electing, might look down on those posting nudes, making people whose nudes happen to be better known more difficult to get jobs. Some people may post nudes and then regret it later, and combined with pressure could lead to them developing some complexes.

Personally, I wouldn't want to live in that society. I can already get porn when I want, so I don't see a huge upside for me. On the other hand, if you think FB/IG/SC stalking post breakups is insane now, let me introduce you to the future.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#62

Post by throwawayboise »

cunthorpe wrote: post #10

I think that people need to understand that once they put themselves out there, especially in sex-fueled environments, they’re adding risk to their lives. They put their sex on full display and think “yeah this is totally fine” while it obviously carries some huge societal weight. I’m not justifying their actions, but also don’t be surprised when they happen. The world isn’t perfect yet. I don’t care much about OF, b…

We used to say, "play stupid games, win stupid prizes."

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#63

Post by jollybean »

pcbro141 wrote: post #58
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…

Not surprised. I would just assume eventually some sexually frustrated person would try to doxx you at some point. I think there are even organized groups dedicated to doing just that. Sexually frustrated/not getting laid + seeing women making money off their sexuality ('unfair') makes some of these people incredibly angry.

This is a neat idea, but hugely speculative.

But also possibly be besides the point: the internet doesn't keep secrets.

A choice to put content out there in public form, is de-facto a choice to make it available to anyone. Whether they paid the $10 or not.

That's a reality that has to be contended with wherever someone sits on the fence about the morality of it all.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#64

Post by ipaddr »

base698 wrote: post #6
girvo wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love for you to expand on that opinion. In some ways I think it's a good product that gives some measure of control (and a _lot_ of the money) back to the people who star in and create pornographic content. The existing industry is exploitative and predatory, and from my admittedly not-very-well-versed vantage point, OnlyFans is much less so due to the very nature of its product and who its content creators are.

Doesn't seem to be the case: https://mobile.twitter.com/aella_girl/status/133572526734025... Has MLM level distribution where only the top 2% or so make anything of consequence.

What that says is of the accounts that make anything the average person makes $500. Which is about 7% of all accounts.

Which isn't bad.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#65

Post by xenihn »

chii wrote: post #17
jazzyjackson wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not OP, but IMO onlyfans is especially predatory because it makes it look easy to trade nudes for large amounts of cash. In reality very few people are going to be making above minimum wage, onlyfans is just like the rest of social media - a lottery that pays millions to a few winners and asks all the other participants to create content for next-to-nothing just to enter the lotto.

> onlyfans is especially predatory if this is what you call predatory, then why isn't sports stars and film/music celebrity culture not predatory in the same way? I don't see the difference. I say let people do what they want, as long as they understand what they're doing and is informed of the (potential) consequences.

All of those are predatory. So is academia.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#66

Post by joshsyn »

superkuh wrote: post #4

The BBC is really digging deep and far away from OnlyFans itself in order to try to generate the moral outrage needed to justify their puritan anti-porn stance. Most of this article seems to be about things that happen outside of the website or instances where users violated the terms of service.

I agree, BBC's can be good for some, bad for others.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#67

Post by jollybean »

chii wrote: post #17
jazzyjackson wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not OP, but IMO onlyfans is especially predatory because it makes it look easy to trade nudes for large amounts of cash. In reality very few people are going to be making above minimum wage, onlyfans is just like the rest of social media - a lottery that pays millions to a few winners and asks all the other participants to create content for next-to-nothing just to enter the lotto.

> onlyfans is especially predatory if this is what you call predatory, then why isn't sports stars and film/music celebrity culture not predatory in the same way? I don't see the difference. I say let people do what they want, as long as they understand what they're doing and is informed of the (potential) consequences.

If you fail at a sport or music, you move on.

If you fail at OnlyFans, then everyone whoever lives for the rest of history can possibly see you nude / playing with yourself / having sex aka 'doing porn' of some threshold for the rest of time. This may not be a problem for some, but for large swaths of others it will be, especially for quantities of individuals who have second thoughts and regret their decisions.

The consequences are not very comparable.

Maybe things will change in the future (i.e. privacy laws etc)

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#68

Post by pseudo0 »

pcbro141 wrote: post #58
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…

Not surprised. I would just assume eventually some sexually frustrated person would try to doxx you at some point. I think there are even organized groups dedicated to doing just that. Sexually frustrated/not getting laid + seeing women making money off their sexuality ('unfair') makes some of these people incredibly angry.

The problem is that those people are the "whales" for these content creators. Normal people with healthy real-world relationships don't spend hundreds or thousands of dollars a month on online parasocial porn addictions. It's like someone selling crack and complaining about how they have to deal with crack addicts.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#69

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

lxmorj wrote: post #15
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't speak for the person you're responding to, but I don't think an assumption of human trafficking by the site's owners is supported given that some other site's owners did human trafficking. By all accounts I've been exposed to, models on OnlyFans earn much better than models on other sites. That seems like a prima facie reason to believe it's overall a good thing, and the evidence would need to be presented to…

I believe he is not saying the site owners are traffickers but that some OF channels could be trafficker run.

Oh, if that's so then I'm even less clear on what we expect OnlyFans to do about it, unless we are going to ban the whole sector of sex work. Some restaurants launder money for the mob too, but we still have restaurants. If there are sensible steps OF could take to reduce the incidence of this, then they should. But it's hard for me to think of what that might be, given any response made over the internet could easily be coerced. Are there ideas I can read up on?

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#70

Post by tshaddox »

HWR_14 wrote: post #61
SilverRed wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you considered the alternative that this is not an evil which you are unable to control but just another way of living / thinking of sexual content? There is nothing inherently evil about this stuff so why is it terrible that it is becoming more accepted/common? If in 30 years we live in a society where people post nudes like they do facebook posts, is there anything wrong about this? Could you describe the harm…

> If in 30 years we live in a society where people post nudes like they do facebook posts, is there anything wrong about this? Well, a main issue is society isn't a monolith. Some people might not want to post nudes (just like some people don't want a FB account) but feel societally pressured to do so. Some people, specifically people hiring or electing, might look down on those posting nudes, making people whose nud…

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)?
Post reply on HN