Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll admit. I' too old to 'get' OF.
I don’t think it’s an age thing, I think is desperation. I’m not desperate enough to get it
I'm also often not desperate for a pun from a stranger, but I think a 'get' it.
Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'
91–100 of 293 posts
Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is true, but I also think that the information in the article alone is insufficient to make a judgment. This salary is over the Philippines minimum wage. It's a legal job like any other. The people interviewed are not super happy about the content of the job, but none of it seems to be anything more than it being pornography-related. Nobody's really seeming to cross any lines of illegality as described in the ar…
What crosses the line is that, as stated in the article, the job is a dishonest scam towards the clients.
OK. But that isn't the main point of this article. It's only an incidental fact in the description of "how "heartbreaking" it is to get less than $2 per hour...". It doesn't sound as if the woman would be heartbroken at all if she was getting paid $20 per hour.
Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'
#93How is this not fraud, or at least false advertising? If I'm paying money to chat with a specific sex worker how is it even legal to let some random dude in a third world country pretend to be the person I'm supposed to be talking to? I've never personally engaged in these types of systems, but I don't think there's a problem with them as long as they are run honestly. It sounds like Onlyfans is exploiting workers an…
> It sounds like Onlyfans is exploiting workers and their own customers. But this is the basic principle of capitalism. The company exploits workers (in order to obtain a net benefit from their work), and exploits customers (by selling the lowest-quality, most expensive product it can manage to). Companies that don't behave like that get out-competed by companies that do. This dynamic is the root of our economic syst…
It’s not exploitation unless the participants in the deal are being coerced. You can’t make a solid case for employees being coerced to work for an exploitative employer outside of company towns or non-functioning labor markets; neither of these apply to the Philippines.
If the chatter thought the job was so bad, they can quit and get a different one. Millions of people make that choice, it is available to them. There is no requirement that they do this work; it is entirely voluntary. The people doing these jobs have determined that it is the best option for them, personally, or they wouldn’t be there.
PS: $2-4/hr is a more than decent wage in the Philippines. Median income there is $2.11/hr, minimum wage is $1.36/hr.
Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'
#94How is this not fraud, or at least false advertising? If I'm paying money to chat with a specific sex worker how is it even legal to let some random dude in a third world country pretend to be the person I'm supposed to be talking to? I've never personally engaged in these types of systems, but I don't think there's a problem with them as long as they are run honestly. It sounds like Onlyfans is exploiting workers an…
On the one hand, yes, on the other hand, personal touch doesn't scale. Webcam models maintain a personal touch by broadcasting their interactions with those who tip, but OF models can't do that. They have two options when their customer base grows too large:
Option one is to use these chatters.
Option two is to chat only with those who pay extra or with no one at all.
Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'
#95How is this not fraud, or at least false advertising? If I'm paying money to chat with a specific sex worker how is it even legal to let some random dude in a third world country pretend to be the person I'm supposed to be talking to? I've never personally engaged in these types of systems, but I don't think there's a problem with them as long as they are run honestly. It sounds like Onlyfans is exploiting workers an…
Someone paid to have a fantasy of sex, and they got that fantasy. If they don't like it, they don't do it again, and this is true whether it's "the model" or someone else. If they do like it, what's the issue?
This is like saying you paid for a celebrity plumber & a regular plumber did the work, but you're upset because you wanted the celebrity. "The job" got done one way or another. They're selling digital handjobs here, there's no need to be precious about it.
Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'
#96I find it sad that there's a story of people (mostly women) doing this disgusting job for little pay (yes, chatting up horny men online because you need the money is disgusting, there's no glamour and little dignity to it), and the top comment is how this is unfair to the john (purchaser of sex work) because it's misleading.
Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It sounds like Onlyfans is exploiting workers and their own customers. But this is the basic principle of capitalism. The company exploits workers (in order to obtain a net benefit from their work), and exploits customers (by selling the lowest-quality, most expensive product it can manage to). Companies that don't behave like that get out-competed by companies that do. This dynamic is the root of our economic syst…
It’s not exploitation unless the participants in the deal are being coerced. You can’t make a solid case for employees being coerced to work for an exploitative employer outside of company towns or non-functioning labor markets; neither of these apply to the Philippines. If the chatter thought the job was so bad, they can quit and get a different one. Millions of people make that choice, it is available to them. Ther…
> unless the participants in the deal are being coerced.
Here's the nice thing about it: they are! If they don't work (for any of the equally exploitative companies in their country) they die.
Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Politicians [...] don’t want to be advocating for them for fear of losing elections. This assumes that the politician plans and has a chance to become re-elected. If this is not the case, the arguments for not advocating for such laws become much less important for the respective politician.
A politician can rarely enact laws alone, and the above issues typically apply to enough politicians at a time to make having a quorum difficult.
Is there anywhere with one term limits for law makers with no staggered terms? If every member of a parliament is yoloing it, I'm not aure if things would be better or worse.
Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It sounds like Onlyfans is exploiting workers and their own customers. But this is the basic principle of capitalism. The company exploits workers (in order to obtain a net benefit from their work), and exploits customers (by selling the lowest-quality, most expensive product it can manage to). Companies that don't behave like that get out-competed by companies that do. This dynamic is the root of our economic syst…
It’s not exploitation unless the participants in the deal are being coerced. You can’t make a solid case for employees being coerced to work for an exploitative employer outside of company towns or non-functioning labor markets; neither of these apply to the Philippines. If the chatter thought the job was so bad, they can quit and get a different one. Millions of people make that choice, it is available to them. Ther…
The requirement is that they not starve, not be made homeless, and not be forced into even less appealing and/or more dangerous work.
The coercion comes from the very limited choices they have to avoid that.
Re: Life as an OnlyFans 'chatter'
#100I question tech community integrity because they will constantly attack Meta or Microsoft for aggressive anti-privacy, Uber for exploitative rates & policies but turn a blind eye to how corrosive & exploitative OF and PornHub are. Maybe because they are subscribers? Why aren't we collectively trying to shut down smut?