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

601–610 of 615 posts

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#601

Post by throwmeawaydddy »

quenix wrote: post #138
simonebrunozzi wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there were about 20K active content creators). The average monthly payment was $5000 20k times $5,000 = $100M/month. Still quite impressive.

… heavily skewed by the top 5%. So the number is likely way, way lower than $100M (perhaps $8-10M?)

I felt obligated to reply to this comment, because you're correct at interpreting my intent.

I should have been cleared with my numbers considering the audience (HN is a stat-aware place it appears!)

Both of my numbers were accurate as stated:

* There were 20K~ active creators.

* The average monthly payout was $5K.

HOWEVER, those numbers are not intended to be calculated together for a total payout valuation (doing that would assume every creator received a payout every month, which was not the case).

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#602

Post by throwmeawaydddy »

jtolmar wrote: post #142
quenix wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

… heavily skewed by the top 5%. So the number is likely way, way lower than $100M (perhaps $8-10M?)

It's an average, so the skew doesn't matter for this. Average = sum / count. Multiply both sides by count. Sum = count * average.

Just to chime in on this one.

You're obviously right mathematically.

Both of the claims in my original comment are correct as stated:

* Roughly 20K active creators (VAL_A).

* An average monthly payout to creators of $5K (VAL_B).

HOWEVER, that does not mean that VAL_A * VAL_B = total monthly payout. The below details are relevant:

1. Not all active creators made money.

2. There was a payout minimum (well, a free payout minimum, which the majority of users waited to reach).

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#603

Post by throwmeawaydddy »

deaddodo wrote: post #137
simonebrunozzi wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there were about 20K active content creators). The average monthly payment was $5000 20k times $5,000 = $100M/month. Still quite impressive.

I'm sure their cut was somewhere in the 10-15%. There's no way there was an OnlyFans competitor a few years ago with a 1.2B USD revenue stream and it went without notice (or purchase). OnlyFans just broke a 2B USD GMV after the COVID surge; and, at their 20% cut, that's a $400M per annum revenue stream.

Yeah, you're close on the cut (varied from 12.5% to 25% depending on purchase types).

The revenue was nowhere near 1.2B.

(I wrote the below in another comment, but it's relevant to this comment):

Both of the claims in my original comment are correct as stated:

* Roughly 20K active creators (VAL_A).

* An average monthly payout to creators of $5K (VAL_B).

HOWEVER, that does not mean that VAL_A * VAL_B = total monthly payout. The below details are relevant:

1. Not all active creators made money.

2. There was a payout minimum (well, a free payout minimum, which the majority of users waited to reach).

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#604

Post by emptysongglass »

jasonlotito wrote: post #580
emptysongglass wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

> I encourage you to read and listen to the stories of sex workers who are speaking their experience directly. I could say the same thing to you. Because I have. I've been doing it for 20+ years now. But also because you literally admit to ignoring sex workers. You can't just pick and choose those that support your narrative. I'm done with this conversation. It's clear you aren't interesting in having a real discussi…

> But also because you literally admit to ignoring sex workers. You can't just pick and choose those that support your narrative.

I never admitted to this, anywhere. In fact, I stated I've been listening for the last decade. Sex workers, especially women, experience extraordinary levels of violence, daily. [1] Sex work is violent, one of the most violent professions in the world.

My father used to drive prostitutes between their appointments to keep them safe because the level of danger to their person was so high. This is in Denmark, one of the safest countries in the world to live in. My friend who works as a domme in the Bay Area was stalked and physically harassed for a year by one particularly obsessive client.

I don't appreciate you using accusatory language to describe me or my relationship to my wife or friends. I never did anything of the sort to you, so please treat me with respect.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2725271/

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#605

Post by ido66667 »

blindmute wrote: post #596
SilverRed wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate your personal opinion and just felt like sharing my own personal counter opinion. Being a gay person in the furry community, posting nudes on IM groups is something that is just done almost like you would post a selfie at the beach. I have seen nudes of most of my friends and even some of my coworkers and the other way around. No one treats it as weird or awkward, its just something you do. It doesn't de…

I don't mean this as a personal insult but if you are a furry you are already so deep in the degeneracy that you wouldn't notice anything of the sort. Like in BNW, it's rare that the people who submerge themselves in the shallows are cogent of what they've done. Most often it manifests as a vague sense of dissatisfaction or unease in the quiet times. I'm not saying you specifically are this way, but furries are not k…

I agree. I've a lot of experience with the furry community and I certainly wouldn't want to live in a society structured like that. You have issues like the extreme focus on sexuality, the constant barrage of extreme sexual content (like non-consent/rape porn) and the tacit tolerance of pedophilia and/or abuse in some furry spaces. I don't think it's healthy for someone to base their identity on a community whose main focus is pornography, and extreme forms of it, at it. It's not an issue with anthropomorphic characters themselves, but the community that formed around them and how it regulates itself. Some people I've seen even developed an exclusive sexual attraction to anthros, which basically kills their chances of having normal sexual and romantic relationships; such extreme cases are pretty rare, though. I'm not too keen on using the term "degeneracy" because it reeks of religious connotations, but I certainly see why people describe the furry fandom like that.

I used to think porn is pretty neutral in the terms of the harm it does to the consumer, but over my years in the internet, I encountered many people who invest much of their time into porn, or structure the way they view others (women mostly) based on porn and I've come to the conclusion that consumption of porn, specifically during one's teenage years, is psychologically damaging. It does change the way you view sexuality, what you perceive as attractive and your sexual preferences. I was exposed to porn at a young age and I'm pretty sure it did me no good. I worry that kids who are nowadays exposed at even younger age might develop maladaptive sexual preferences and views.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#606

Post by ramraj07 »

mywittyname wrote: post #510
ramraj07 wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

If the median and mean are significantly far from each other than that's an immediate indication that the distributon is skewed, and we also know to what side. If you know the sample size you can also get a degree of skew from this. I challenge you to tell me any other two numbers that can give you that much info by themselves with no knowledge of the underlying distribution.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#607

Post by ripsawridge »

wwweston wrote: post #511
ripsawridge wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> perhaps like some progressives, I am not sure there is as big a difference as we'd like to believe between selling one's spring days to be a cog in any commercial operation and selling participation in sexual gratification. There is! In the first case, you work with colleagues who may become friends, you learn how to treat people and build stronger relationships. The "cog in [a] commercial operation" quip is an abs…

In some conventional jobs, you have the opportunity to make friends with colleagues and otherwise build relationships. If you've never worked for an enterprise badly suffused with exploitative and adversarial interactions or known anyone who has, then you may want to re-examine the idea of who is constructing their opinions here from a position of privilege. And there is likewise a distribution of conditions under wh…

Sigh. So I'm writing from a position of privilege (I'm often accused of this).

However, if MY attitudes are adopted, then the locus of control returns to the individual. Who will do better in the end: the one who goes home every night feeling that the "enterprise [is] badly suffused with exploitative and adversarial interactions" or the one who takes personal responsibility for each interaction in which he or she is involved?

I know who I think will do better. Who will have a more positive impact on their surrounding environment. This may be unsophisticated.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#608

Post by kar5pt »

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…

This is not new. Internet porn was mainstream when I was in middle/high school in the 00's. Every boy was looking at it and it was way more hard-core than what you see on onlyfans. If anything porn has gotten softer since then.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#609

Post by kar5pt »

roca wrote: post #574
scrollaway wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Results aren't good according to... You?

Lots of porn users are unhappy about their use of porn. Lots of people are unhappy about their partner's use of porn. Lots of therapists are worried about their clients' use of porn. Etc. And these are not issues of stigma; we know that because to be taken seriously in the media everyone talking about their problems has to start with "I'm not against porn per se, but ..."

So according to anecdotes. Gotcha.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#610

Post by tut-urut-utut »

frenchy wrote: post #475
echelon wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd posit English doesn't have swear words anymore. I'm a native English speaker and I've noticed that swearing no longer feels like a big deal. Our media and online discourse are saturated with the worst swears our language has to bear, to the point none of it hits with gravity. I also think some of it has to do with changing generational attitudes. Millennials and Gen Z use swearing as friendly banter. You can call…

It does, it just depends on your register, and they also change regularly. Shit and damn used to be taboo, but they haven't been now for a while. However (in the American dialect, I think) "cunt" is pretty taboo, as well as the various racial terms, and "fuck" can be taboo depending on the context (i.e. you wouldn't use it to address your server at a restaurant).

But I would definitely use “fuck” to address a shitty Windows server we are forced to use at work, even in the formal context.
Post reply on HN