Live data from Hacker News

Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

matthewball.co

651–660 of 878 posts

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I'd never seriously date someone if we couldn't be totally open and honest about our sexual histories and desires, etc. I think you're referring to a specific motivation some people have about wanting to know such information that is based on shame/insecurity/prudishness. Don't discount that some people want to share these things with their partner because it creates more intimacy and/or is hot.

sharing != asking

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#652

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are those sex workers doing something they shouldn't be doing? You are asking a binary question for which there isn't a binary answer. Better to ask are those sex workers doing something they will get a pat on their backs for from other members of society? In a way a builder, chef, firefighter, and even a prison guard would.

Perhaps the lack of a "pat on the back" is society's fault.

For what? For opening your legs and getting paid for it? Without criminals and sleezy execs as clients prostitution would cease to exist. The edge cases mentioned before are tiny

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#653
post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Would I be happy if after the education I paid my daughters they decide to work in public sanitation? Think honestly about it. Do you think I have anything against sanitation employees?

Your moral compass is truly fucked. One makes a mess of their own life and contributes to making a mess of many other lives. The other cleans up messes.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#654

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You added "one of the first questions" to make your position seem less insane, Lmao. Nobody's first question is "have you ever been a porn star" but it's going to come up eventually and, whether or not you care it will definitely be a deal breaker for many.

Your comment above was mentionning "prospective partner", so it implies happening during the early stages of a relationship. Or I don't know, maybe in your culture you have to wait months / years before considering a partner someone you are dating regularly / spending a significant part of your life with.

Knowing somebody before being in a relationship with them is anything but unusual. Even if you start dating somebody you never knew before you still get to know each other before making any sort of commitment. Keep coping though.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#656

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.

I feel the same, but I also feel that the desired levels of staged human intimacy actually depends on cohorts, as in it's probably not what large bulk of the users are looking for.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#657
post #494
post #132

Two parts stand out for me: 1. COVID: The explosion in revenues during 2020 is self explanatory. 2. Product market fit/Execution: The owners having previously created other, albeit, unsuccessful platforms certainly helped with creating Onlyfans. This is a very simple idea that thousands will have had, but creating it successfully necessarily requires a good understanding of a sector avoided by most major corporations…

1: is it? Why would the established platforms not get that boost instead? I don't find this very self explanatory, do explain :)

Just guessing, but OF's social interaction (or "interaction", if you will) with creators was more appealing whilst we were all starved for human connection.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#658

I know it is pedantic, but could someone please enlighten me as to where does MM means millions? It's so easy to stick to international units, folks. Please. PLEASE!

M is 1,000 in Roman numerals. MM is short for M*M, so 1,000 * 1,000 = 1,000,000 or MM. The M lives on in languages like Spanish where the word mil means one thousand.

This somewhat misses the point of my comment, tough. The post was written in English, so one should stick to how English represents millions.

Based on that, I can say `1.000.000` is equal to MM because Brazil uses `.` to separate groups of 3 digits, and `,` to separate integer and decimal parts.

My point is to stick to using the units the language you're writing on uses.

Btw, thanks for explaining the origin of MM! I definitely didn't know that.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#659
post #518
post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You can like Ryan Gosling and catch every movie he's in. But if you're buying a tabloid so you can see photos of him getting coffee at Starbucks, that's parasocial.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#660
post #644

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…

> [...] 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 you're making assumptions about people's motivations that aren't consistent with evidence. Pornhub and similar sites are full of content that is a dime a dozen and available for free and does not suggest any kind of "parasocial" relationship with the viewer. It's jus…

I think OP's point is that people aren't (directly) paying for Pornhub, although I realize some people are paying some site that make porn, but the amounts remain smaller than what people pay directly on OF.
Post reply on HN