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

771–780 of 878 posts

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#771

Post by TimTheTinker »

darkr wrote: post #735
makeitdouble wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it feels like you're being treated uniquely... But most times you are not. That's just any customer business. When you go buy a house it feels like the agent is really looking at your personal circumstances and trying hard to be your friend. When you go cut your hair the staff will remember your name and ask about your day. Your dentist will keep track of your operations, personalize your care and make sure you're…

Americans are weird. I’ve been going to the same barber for years. He doesn’t know my name, barely says a word and it’s just so comforting.

You may not realize just how lonely a lot of us are.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#772

Post by jacobgkau »

hungie wrote: post #365
elzbardico wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Err.. count me out of this. I wouldn't deny a job for a former sex worker, but definitelly I wouldn't want to have any kind of personal relationship with one.

That's fine for you (though I'd challenge you to ask yourself why), but younger generations and many in older generations like myself are realizing that sex work is just work. Bodies are just bodies. Relationships and past sexual history are in the past. It's another flavor of bodily autonomy.

> sex work is just work. Bodies are just bodies. Relationships and past sexual history are in the past.

Emotions are just emotions. Might as well just stop with the whole "dating" thing and only use each other transactionally when we want kids. Or better yet, just don't reproduce, right?

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#773

Post by HappMacDonald »

zizee wrote: post #761
vundercind wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kurt Vonnegut wrote in a couple of places about how recording and mass reproduction destroyed the social (and monetary) value of small-time creative or artistic-expression talent, like knowing how to play the piano OK or being a pretty-good singer or dancing decently well, or being a quite good (but not top 0.1% good) storyteller, or being fairly good at sketching people. Took social, and perhaps making-a-living valu…

This is very close to my feelings about the swathe of AI tools being released. The ability to write an essay, create unique art, spit out a SQL script, write a pithy limerick... all these things are being cheapened somewhat.

It's like every time hundreds of millions of humans figure out how to do a creative thing to a given mediocre standard, the rest of us figure out how to either give global broadcast reach so that the work of one can satisfy millions and raise the bar that way (large amphitheaters, printing press, public transit, tv, telephone, internet), or teach a robot how to accomplish the same task (sewing, precise assembly labor, automobiles vs horses, GPT, maybe eventually self-driving cars or vending-machine cooked to order fast food).

If I talked about putting all of the telephone sanitizers on a spaceship that might be a reference those of a certain age might be able to grok. :)

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#775

Post by HappMacDonald »

vunderba wrote: post #474
pfannkuchen wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair point. The reason I don’t think only playing with the band counts is: in a hunter gather tribe 70,000 years ago, did everyone sing all of the songs all of the time? Or did some people just listen, at least some of the time? Practically speaking I think it must have been the latter. Of course there are lots of unnatural aspects in live music still, like too many people, too loud, etc. But recorded music is wholly…

It seems like you're drawing an arbitrary line in the sand to determine what things are natural versus what things are unnatural. Furthermore, it seems like you think by definition, unnatural is negative. By your logic, writing things down is also unnatural and we should've kept with the oral tradition only. Natural is stepping on a piece of metal, contracting tetanus, and dying without appropriate medical treatment.

That's the spirit, porn is like hospitals. :D

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#776

Post by HappMacDonald »

SecretDreams wrote: post #315
itishappy wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that particularly different from, say, concerts? The social aspects are what drives value.

It's the feeling of being more personalized. I see what you're saying about concerts, but it is not the same. Nobody is going to the concert thinking the musician is "talking to them" or making content specifically "for them".

I'unno every concert I've been to has included the band/singer replacing a placename randomly from the lyrics of one of their songs with the name of whatever town the concert was being held in. shrug

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#777

Post by HappMacDonald »

flyingpenguin wrote: post #358
itishappy wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that particularly different from, say, concerts? The social aspects are what drives value.

I don't know about you, but I also find concerts very strange and off putting. Like, is "Denver" really a special crowd? I'm pretty sure you are doing a very staged reppeded performance but making us think its specially for us. I like things without crowd interaction, like musicals/plays, because there is no dystopian parasocial aspect to it. I am only there because the live is different than the recording.

I've seen plenty of crowd interaction in musicals and plays too. Ever been to Rocky Horror Picture Show live before?

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#778

Post by HappMacDonald »

hooverd wrote: post #642
SecretDreams wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the OP is right about the parasocial aspect. OF content and other such platforms is about the personalization aspect. Sure, there's some kinks/fetishes too.. but it is primarily about engagement. In some ways, it's just an explicit, subscription based, social media platform where it feels like you're being treated uniquely... But most times you are not.

Funny enough, I follow an OnlyFans creator on Xitter, and they've been complaining that OnlyFans was cracking down on kink/fetish content. I guess OF only wants parasocial slop on their platform!

Well given that OF tried to ban all porn a year or two ago (obviously quickly backpedaling while dodging projectile-spam of rotten fruit) I'm certainly not surprised.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#779

Post by jodrellblank »

GaryNumanVevo wrote: post #749
arandomusername wrote: post #704

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's a horrible way to go about life, and I am glad most do not share your outlook and do take moral responsibility for their actions.

I would simply not let my children decide to buy drugs based on what the free market provides

If you'd do that for your children, why not regulate the free market and save everyone's children from the obvious and predictable harm that you can see your ideology leads to?

(if your ideology leads to very predictable harm to children which you need to intervene protect your children from, maybe your ideology sucks).

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#780

Post by afavour »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #549
afavour wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

I’d you’re suggesting marriage rates are down because of porn I’m going to throw a [citation needed] on there.
Post reply on HN