return to table of content

Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

braza
220 replies
11h17m

Not a moralistic take, but one issue that interests me is the second-order impacts associated with the long tail of producers in OF who do not make a career from it.

With traditional adult entertainment, creators are aware of the social ramifications (e.g., social stigma, familial ostracism, difficulty dealing with the future, and so on), and there is a decent theoretical economic framework to measure that.

I am not sure if there's the same this new army of "civilians" joining OF, let alone the additional toll it will take on the creators in terms of social ostracism, future prospects, future opportunities, and mental health.

lynx23
85 replies
10h59m

Well, those civilians who can think for themselves, especially about the consequences of their actions, are clearly in advantage. I am lacking empathy for those who are apparently so hooked up to the here-and-now that they seem to ignore the future. If you sell your body, most societies will punish you. Thats fine, societies have all sorts of norms we all need to learn.

Freak_NL
46 replies
10h49m

If you sell your body, most societies will punish you. Thats [sic] fine, […]

How is that 'fine'?

I would like to see a future where someone doing sex work to make ends meet (or even as a freely chosen profession!) is not ostracised for it. Sex is part of society whether you want it or not, and so is paying for sexual acts.

bad_user
23 replies
10h35m

I would like to see a future where people shouldn't have to prostitute themselves to make ends meet.

Some cultural norms are outdated, but prostitution is still degrading and dangerous for those practicing it, especially for the women; who may not be doing so willingly, prostitution being the main incentive for human trafficking. And the online medium doesn't change that by much.

Some people may be willing to pay for sex, some people are willing to pay for many other things or activities that should be or are illegal.

Freak_NL
11 replies
10h17m

Sex work will never go away. The only way forward is to make sure it can be done safely and legally.

Consider the sex workers who deal with mentally or physically disabled adults. Most people have sexual urges, and those who are unable to participate in society in the usual way of addressing their urges with a romantic partner or a one-night stand still have them. There are a good number of very professional sex workers out there who can provide these people with sex (often with specific expertise for the relevant handicaps) and generally significantly improve the wellbeing.

Are those sex workers doing something they shouldn't be doing?

seper8
6 replies
7h29m

Would you be happy if your daughter was a sex worker?

Think honestly about what this means for your view on this.

AshamedCaptain
2 replies
5h11m

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?

lupusreal
0 replies
1h15m

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.

GreenWatermelon
0 replies
3h53m

Bad comparison.

Public sanitation workers keep our society functioning, they're a cornerstone of civilization.

Online prostitution, on the other hand, ranges from providing 0 value, to extreme negative consequences, such as the current porn addiction epidemic, or the loneliness epidemic.

Freak_NL
1 replies
5h39m

That would depend entirely on her circumstances. Is she a professional helping disabled people like my example above? That's laudable. A self-employed dominatrix with a select clientele? Sounds lucrative. A popular OnlyFans starlet just making some money on the side during her studies? Clever. Participating in explicit forms of BDSM porn? If she does so of her own volition, with the consent of all parties involved, for a fair pay and without lasting harm? Cool as long as she's working with professionals with a good reputation.

In all of those cases I would council her to the best of my abilities on safety and long-term planning, if she'd let me. And of course, as any parent, I would worry about her safety. But hey, I'd worry if she went paragliding or mountain climbing too.

Honestly, I would be more disappointed if she became a lawyer in the pocket of, say, Amazon or AirBnB. Or a politician for some extreme right political party.

Would I be happy if she was a sex worker in some seedy part of town with a pimp hovering over her? Of course not. But that is not dismissive of sex work as such, rather of exploitation and coercion. All of the examples above avoid that.

standardUser
0 replies
2h38m

Well said, and unnecessarily downvoted for such a thoughtful comment.

paulryanrogers
0 replies
6h24m

If she's safe, successful, healthy, and doing it of her own free will then why not be happy?

medo-bear
3 replies
9h20m

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.

paulryanrogers
2 replies
7h28m

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

swagasaurus-rex
0 replies
2h24m

Why? it’s so easy to make content

medo-bear
0 replies
1h16m

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

mgaunard
7 replies
9h59m

It's not "to make ends meet". OF work allows people with no skills to get income in line with the top 10th or even 1st percentile of the population.

Would you rather be flipping burgers all day for 30k or would you rather take a few nudes every week and make 300k?

beaglesss
5 replies
9h10m

I wouldn't be surprised to find out an absurd fraction of those 300k is just straight up money laundering. Who is actually gonna be able to verify the value of someone allegedly showing their tits to a whale at 3am? The fact this all passed through traditional financial networks with a clean and reportable earnings report at the end is just pure gold.

OF is like the wet dream of a drug dealer or whoever else with a baby momma and some kind of scam/fraud/counterfeit operation.

djtango
4 replies
8h54m

I agree with what you say but we know enough about youtubers and mobile gaming to safely assume that the numbers in this space are wild. I remember on Pewdiepie's first ever charity YouTube stream he was printing thousands per second via donos

TeMPOraL
2 replies
8h21m

But you can't compare with top performers in a power law / winner-takes-all setting. Comparing random youtubers or OF-ers to PewDiePie is like comparing the guy owning a fruit stand down the street to Jeff Bezos. Owns business, owns business; the same thing, right?

djtango
1 replies
7h7m

I agree that power laws are in play, but 1000 subs paying $10 a month is already a six figure income and 1000 users isn't a big number on the internet, especially when as TFA mentions you can go on reddit and advertise cosplays on subs that have audiences in the millions

TeMPOraL
0 replies
7h2m

1000 users isn't a big number. 1000 paying users is.

toyg
0 replies
8h28m

Who would have thought that all those big numbers in TV deals were actually underestimated by the billions. The general public is even more desperate/gullible than we ever considered possible. And OF and YT are just the beginning.

lotsofpulp
0 replies
7h56m

Source? Like all entertainment sold with near zero marginal cost, why should only fans work also not follow an extreme power law formula for compensation.

huuhee3
0 replies
9h17m

I would like to see a future where people shouldn't have to do any work they don't enjoy to make ends meet. As far as I can see, working fast food (and many other badly paid service jobs) is not much different from prostitution, except in that there is no social stigma attached, and you earn much less.

achenet
0 replies
9h43m

prostitution is still degrading and dangerous for those practicing it, especially for the women;

degrading: no. I've met prostitutes who very much like their work and find it empowering

dangerous: ...yes, because it's illegal and they don't have access to proper legal protection.

TeMPOraL
0 replies
8h17m

but prostitution is still degrading

Why? Especially compared to e.g. advertising/marketing? At least in the former case, all parties to the transaction are there voluntarily, for an honest, mutually beneficial exchange of value.

amelius
7 replies
10h25m

It's fine because otherwise we'd evolve into the social structure of Bonobo monkeys, where every problem is solved with sex.

prmoustache
5 replies
9h17m

where every problem is solved with sex.

Would it be a problem?

zakki
3 replies
6h57m

Yes. Till this day Bonobo has no invention.

Do you like this kind of society?

prmoustache
0 replies
6h2m

Well it depends what kind of society brings the most happiness out of our lives.

I can't say, I have never lived as a Bonobo.

ath3nd
0 replies
6h25m

One could argue that it's better to have no inventions than inventing the following:

- the Spanish inquisition

- jihad/crusades

- guns

- PFAS

- agent orange

- iron maiden (not the band, the torture device)

- the atomic bomb

Der_Einzige
0 replies
2h45m

This is exactly what everyone means by “return to monke”

sulandor
0 replies
8h22m

obviously better than fighting

sheepdestroyer
0 replies
9h47m

Not following why that, if true, would make the current situation better ("fine").

beaglesss
5 replies
10h33m

Society accepting sex work is the worst thing that can happen to sex workers. They can have their cake and eat it right now -- not terribly illegal in the west but shunned which limits competition.

When it becomes fine, it will be worth no more than someone coming to mow your lawn, and probably less than that.

ptsneves
1 replies
10h18m

Wow i never thought of that! I love this reasoning (no sarcasm intended!). Based on supply/demand, the lack of social acceptance leads to low supply which in turn makes sure the price matches the moral cost. I honestly wished it was not (considered) degrading and just as acceptable as any hospitality service, although in my culture it is indeed immoral to take or provide sex services. Even so if it still is degrading indeed there should be a matching cost, but damn economics is a tricky one.

lennxa
0 replies
7h16m

not treating sex workers like crap doesnt mean they'll make lesser. one must also consider the monetary equivalents of the mental health of the worker. and the demand will increase by a lot too.

ithkuil
1 replies
10h22m

Wouldn't that put at least some pressure into pursuing other options (like mowing somebody's lawn)?

ithkuil
0 replies
10h20m

Wouldn't that be an incentive towards other career paths (such as mowing lawns)?

EDIT: brace for the lawn mowing cartels led by ex human trafficking gangs. On a more serious note, there is so much criminality involved in that field precisely because it's illegal and lucrative. You remove that and you remove a lot of abuse.

mgaunard
0 replies
9h57m

There are many countries in the west where prostitution is legal and taxed like any other activity.

It seems the main complain is that it brings the prices down due to competition from eastern europe.

mihaic
2 replies
8h18m

If you want to take purely moral grounds, there's nothing to make prostitution or Onlyfans "wrong", except if done with exploitation. At the same time, it contributes to the demographic crysis, and if you care about results, you have to put pressure against the lifestyles that are nudging people away from starting a family and having kids.

Drug dealers are also part of society, yet we still frown upon them.

I-M-S
1 replies
8h4m

An individual has no obligation to respect a societal order that doesn't respect them back.

mihaic
0 replies
6h40m

Why do you say that? Most individuals that aren't respected by society had that respect, yet lost it through some action (like dealing drugs).

I think we're seeing things in different frameworks, and I'm considering the end result more important than the principles here. If you don't accept that some seemingly individual decisions have a cumulated effect on society long-term, and that shaming is the only mechanism to make changes here, there really is no discourse possible.

medo-bear
2 replies
9h32m

I would certainly not like to live in a future where selling your body to make ends meet is considered normal. To me it is already concerning that normalization of prostitution is happening to some extent in mass media.

Sex is in all (?) human cultures viewed as most intimate and private expression of civilized love. It is also how we teach our kids about sex. Pornography and prostitution serve only our primal desires which goes against all this. Does it really surprise you that society will shun people that partake in these things? To me it is obvious as day.

kwhitefoot
1 replies
7h35m

We all have to sell ourselves in order to live. I'm sure that there are plenty of people working at jobs that they thoroughly dislike. Shouldn't we concentrate on making sure that people really have a choice rather than on discriminating against people who make a choice?

medo-bear
0 replies
1h19m

Discrimination against people making the wrong choices is natural. Discriination against people repenting for the wrong choices is wrong

smolder
0 replies
9h3m

Sex is part of society whether you want it or not, and so is paying for sexual acts.

Yes, and this seems to be a discussion of whether people want it or not. I don't think paid sex acts ruin the world. Some people probably need it in place of real intimacy, for their own mental health. I still think it's generally scummy and unproductive. Then again, I think all sorts of businesses can be described that way. Snake oil has been killing it for as long as commerce has been around. Another example: if you go around gutting productive companies to line your own pockets, e.g. buying & dismantling competitors to stop competition, I see that as a greater moral failing than baiting lonely people with sex appeal.

It's common that people forget or fail to understand that business is a way to cooperatively shape life into something desirable, and instead see it as a way to win at others expense.

lynx23
0 replies
10h43m

Thats also fine. You can "like to see" everything you want. Question is, what the rest of society believes. Oldest bussiness and all that, I am actually on your side. But that doesn't mean I can ignore what overall society feels and thinks. Besides, there is a difference between consuming payed sex, and having a relationship with a (ex) sex worker. The difference is quite huge.

benterix
26 replies
10h22m

If you sell your body, most societies will punish you.

Why though? It is an interesting issue when you look closer. For an individual, it's more obvious - I wouldn't like to be with a prostitute because of possible hidden diseases and lack of trust - but there is no way of telling how many sexual contacts my new partner had, whether paid for or not.

But I wouldn't have any problem working with an ex-pro in the same company or team, they would be just a colleague like all the rest, and I can't imagine any adult making any immature comments about the past of any colleagues on my team.

tessierashpool9
21 replies
10h17m

same here, i think some people are just a little too submissive and uncritical to the so called rules of society. also engaging in porn or even prostitution isn't really "selling" of one's body.

ath3nd
11 replies
9h9m

People working in the mines, or the military, I wonder why that's a socially acceptable way of "selling" their body, but prostitution is not. Even we, behind a computer screen and getting back pain and wrist RSI, we also "sell" our bodies in a matter of speaking.

I can only imagine that the negative perception of prostitution as "selling" your body is coming from mainstream religions which are the great society moralizer.

TeMPOraL
5 replies
8h25m

Even coming from mainstream religions, that's annoyingly knee-jerk. Sure, prostitution is shameful and sinful and whatnot, but what about maliciously lying to your neighbor, trying to get rich off their misfortune? Even from a mainstream religious perspective, marketing gives prostitution a run for its money, and outside that framework, arguably it's less shameful to do OF than to be a "regular" influencer, or go into telemarketing. At least with this kind of sex work, all parties to transaction tend to benefit, and all are in it voluntarily.

paulryanrogers
1 replies
7h43m

At least with this kind of sex work, all parties to transaction tend to benefit, and all are in it voluntarily.

Haven't some OF creators come out admitting they were pressured into it, or at least doing it more than they'd like.

TeMPOraL
0 replies
7h3m

I can believe it. Sex work in general is fraught with various degrees of abuse. However, it's also clear that there is a large class of workers that's doing this work voluntarily, under no pressure (at least not beyond the pressures every employee in any field experiences); my comparison would apply to them.

broken-kebab
1 replies
7h59m

It's whataboutism, isn't it? It surely hypocritical when someone only fights other's sin while ignoring own (and one mainstream religion has a special piece about it - speck in a brother's eye). But my harmful behavior still doesn't make your harmful behavior good, and vice versa

ath3nd
0 replies
5h2m

But my harmful behavior still doesn't make your harmful behavior good, and vice versa

In principle I agree.

We have a society praising a soldier for killing and risks losing limbs and life (basically selling his body) during military service, but demonizing a sex worker.

This society needs to take a good hard look in the mirror. We have people admonishing sex work and marijuana use, while its most "successful" members are in arms dealing, fossil fuels, workers exploitation (amazon), and gambling with the livelihoods of people (banks/wall street).

ath3nd
0 replies
8h4m

At least with this kind of sex work, all parties to transaction tend to benefit, and all are in it voluntarily

Beautifully put!

Sure, prostitution is shameful and sinful and whatnot

Only according to some. Imo it's much more immoral to work in fossil fuels or the police/military (where you abandon morals to execute orders).

akimbostrawman
4 replies
8h8m

I wonder why that's a socially acceptable way of "selling" their body, but prostitution is not.

Probably because its not the same at all. Getting naked and spreading your legs is neither as productive nor difficult as serving your country. Neither should it have the same social status.

lotsofpulp
2 replies
8h0m

ath3nd did not write same social status, they wrote socially acceptable. Relevant username, I guess.

ath3nd
1 replies
3h55m

I guess I meant a bit of both.

We don't give high social status to killers, thugs, murderers and hired assassins, but when it's institutionalized killing, (which is the military) that's okay? The fact that an "official" gives the word, and the victims are not citizens of your country doesn't make the military be less about killing.

There also is nothing "productive" about paying for salaries, equipment and training to a bunch of grown men in the anticipation that you have to send them to do violence to your bidding.

If the military was not under the veneer of "official", wrapping it in an "institution" and all the language of "serving your country", we'd not been able to distinguish between military, militia and armed thugs.

Yet, our society at large reveres them as some heroes and they are mainly socially acceptable.

I bet that if we had a "Department of pleasure", with ranks, hierarchies, rules, promotion paths, etc, sex workers wouldn't be as marginalized as they are now. In fact, in many civilized countries, prostitutions is both legal and taxed, and less stigmatized than it is in the US, who are too puritanical/religion influenced in their views to want it to be otherwise.

lotsofpulp
0 replies
3h43m

There also is nothing "productive" about paying for salaries, equipment and training to a bunch of grown men in the anticipation that you have to send them to do violence to your bidding.

I disagree. First and only rule of nature is might makes right, and being capable of dishing out the most violence (and hence also least likely to be the victim of it) is very “productive”. It is a huge contributor to the purchasing power of the US dollar, which is a referendum on the stability and productivity of US society.

For example, the oceanic transportation routes around the world are kept mostly safe and humming along because of militaries enforcing it.

ath3nd
0 replies
4h18m

Getting naked and spreading your legs is neither as productive nor difficult as serving your country

We have different moral compasses, I guess. To me, obeying military orders (which often result in killing people) is neither productive, nor difficult (as a big part of thinking/initiative is replaced by blindly following orders). Military personnel basically outsource a large chunk of thinking and assessing good/bad to a "higher power". In a way, that's very easy and comfortable life for a specific type of people: all higher order judgments are deferred to higher ups in the military chain. Besides, I wouldn't say military personnel are "serving" their country more than, say, plumbers, electricians, railway workers, postal service, healthcare workers, or, even sex workers.

Neither should it have the same social status

I disagree. The fact that somebody who has no other skills and initiative but to be a death machine/robot blindly following orders, doesn't warrant them to be a hero, and sure as hell doesn't qualify them to a high social status in my book. And, at least to me, calling military service "productive" is just plain hypocrisy. Their only function is to either destroy things during war, or sit around looking menacing when there is no war.

Imo, money spent on weapons and the military could be better spent to build more social housing, solve healthcare problems, etc.

broken-kebab
5 replies
8h10m

Those rules aren't taken from the thin air though. It's really easy to argue that sexual gedonism is detrimental to society, and its online incarnation is even more so: as any addiction it steals productive time from people's lives, it puts hormones over culture which patently breeds violence, it leads to social atomization, and consequently to mental issues (which means violence again), economically bad on a level comparable to fentanyl imports, and the list goes on.

benterix
3 replies
6h3m

as any addiction it steals productive time from people's lives, it leads to social atomization, and consequently to mental issues (which means violence again), economically bad on a level comparable to fentanyl imports, and the list goes on.

Well the same could be said of social media, mobile phones, netflix binge, computer games (although I don't agree with the violence part). So why single out sex then?

lupusreal
0 replies
2h50m

Use and particularly overuse of those things is definitely a relationship deal killer for many people. Ask around with the women you know what they think about men who spend most of their time playing video games.

NeutralCrane
0 replies
4h17m

You are tying to make an argument for destigmatizing sex work, but for me I think it really points out how we should really increase the stigma towards those working for social media giants, sports gambling sites, and other tech companies whose main operating model is actively getting people addicted to something and then profiting off of it. Social media is one of the worst developments for society in recent history, and the people working for Facebook or TikTok absolutely deserve to be shamed for actively participating for personal gain.

GreenWatermelon
0 replies
3h58m

Straw man. No one singled anything out, this thread is specifically talking about one topic. In many other threads you'll find people discussing the extreme negative consequences of social media.

paulryanrogers
0 replies
6h28m

Citation needed

DiggyJohnson
1 replies
9h21m

Leasing, then?

victorbjorklund
0 replies
6h33m

is a selfie leasing your head?

ImHereToVote
0 replies
7h36m

It's a classic chesterton fence phenomena, It's just that we can't connect the externalities to the fence.

jpadkins
1 replies
4h22m

If you sell your body, most societies will punish you. > Why though?

In stable families and societies, women use sex as control (power) over men. Younger women who sell sex are undermining that power structure. That is why they must be punished.

Another way to look at in economic terms: Female sex is a scarce resource. Female selling transactional sex is commoditizing this resource. In general, people don't like their valuable service getting commoditized.

beaglesss
0 replies
4h12m

It's already commodities in places like California. For instance, the state considers a wife a depreciating asset that goes to zero at year ten, now owed potentially lifelong alimony as you've used up her most fertile years and therefore you must support her for life.

As a married person in balancing my finances I always then half it and then subtract 20 percent of my pretax income to find what's truly mine after liabilities to my spouse. This makes me explicitly aware of the true cost I pay, and if god forbid i am divorced i have already mentally written off most my wealth and home I painstakingly singlehandedly built stick by stick over a period of years as not actually mine.

Prostitution causes a real problem here as it throws a bone in the resource extraction from male to female by making the consumer more informed on costs up front.

mrguyorama
0 replies
1h58m

I wouldn't like to be with a prostitute because of possible hidden diseases and lack of trust

Why do you inherently distrust a former sex worker? What about sex work is distrustful? Do you think prostitutes have a habit of not delivering after payment or something?

croes
0 replies
8h48m

but there is no way of telling how many sexual contacts my new partner had, whether paid for or not.

The same is true for their clients but they don't get the same treatment.

ht85
6 replies
10h2m

I am lacking empathy for those who are apparently so hooked up to the here-and-now

A large amount of those people are very young, at an age where you don't really pick your options solely on their super long term consequences.

Most people are going to be "stupid" in their early adulthood, failing and adjusting is a big part of it. Unfortunately, some of those decisions will stick more than others and sex work is very sticky (zing).

lynx23
2 replies
9h54m

So, if young people are unable to take responsibility for their actions, we will need to raise the age for maturity... I am sorry, adults are adults are adults. Either you make your own decisions or you don't.

brainwad
1 replies
9h14m

Unironically the former. It's weird that we have at the same time reduced the legal age of adulthood, while simultaneously extended the actual period of adolescence and dependence for the average young person. It used to be a century ago, that you started working for a wage at 14 and didn't get legal independence until 21. Now you get legal independence at 18 but might be in full time education until you are 25 (with a masters).

djtango
0 replies
8h44m

Yah my mum was helping out with the family business around age 5. It's kind of crazy to think how quickly its swung from having that kind of responsibility thrust on you from so young to now where people in their mid 20s may still be in their "incubatory" period

jdasdf
2 replies
9h34m

A large amount of those people are very young, at an age where you don't really pick your options solely on their super long term consequences.

And they will continue to be if there are never any consequences.

Stop bailing people out of problems they make for themselves and people will start learning to not make those problems.

Human beings are not stupid machines who see others put their hand in the fire, getting burned, then they put their own hands in the fire get burned, and then keep doing it over and over again.

Most will stop when they see others get burned, others still will stop when they get burned, and a small minority will stop once there is no hand left to burn.

vel0city
0 replies
4h52m

Most will stop when they see others get burned, others still will stop when they get burned, and a small minority will stop once there is no hand left to burn.

And this explains how drug problems solved themselves hundreds of years ago. Good thing we've all decided to stop doing debilitating drugs after seeing the consequences of addition in the past!

ht85
0 replies
7h19m

There is a reason why many parts of the world will ticket you for not wearing your seatbelt. There is a reason you cannot (could not? crypto changed a lot) do advanced stock trading without a license. Why gambling is regulated, etc.

We don't want people to hurt themselves, because we have humanity and because they become a drain on society.

I find it hard to be that black and white with phenomenons like OF, that emerge from a mix of societal and technological advancement.

There are grey zones and not everyone is fortunate enough to be taught to be responsible. Not everyone can go through life without feeling desperate and resort to doing things they would not be proud of.

We should try to educate and protect people instead of pointing internet fingers at them.

djbusby
1 replies
7h43m

If you sell your body

That's how all labor works.

trackflak
0 replies
2h46m

It doesn't matter whether I write a module in Fortran, fold laundry or sell a kidney on the black market. It's all morally equivalent!

standardUser
0 replies
2h41m

Historically, many of societies' "norms" have been hateful, vile and narrowly targeted. There is a thousand years of history showing us that we are better off challenging norms than adhering to them.

croes
0 replies
8h51m

Some societies had the norm to punish gay people, at least many learned that was wrong

Somehow it's mainly the ones who sells their body and not the ones who buy them who get punished.

Buying is more often voluntarily than selling.

habinero
64 replies
11h2m

With the mainstreaming of feminism, that kind of social stigma is rapidly going away. The whole idea that women have to maintain 'purity' is no longer acceptable in today's world, and that's a good thing.

lynx23
34 replies
10h57m

Really? Would you go for a relationship with an ex-OF-girl? Because feminism told you so? Or you sincerly dont care?

prmoustache
17 replies
9h0m

Are you the kind of creeps that ask their partners how many relation they had before you?

quibono
6 replies
8h10m

What's wrong with asking that? I thought it's all about people being open.

prmoustache
5 replies
7h19m

being open about your own past != having to know/ask everything about your partner's past

quibono
4 replies
6h54m

I guess I fail to see why one should be open in the first place if this isn't going to be reciprocated by your partner.

prmoustache
3 replies
5h7m

There is a difference between solicited and unsolicited information. In my experience people who can't live with someone without asking them the number of past partners are the toxic ones.

raxxorraxor
1 replies
3h55m

If you regard it as unsolicited information, you seem to put a judgement on it yourself. Perhaps more than the people who would just like to know. Not a requirement but it would also no be unusual in a relationship.

prmoustache
0 replies
2h35m

By unsolicited information, I mean it is normal to be open and comfortable speaking about your past sex life regardless if you partner asked to know about it. But specifically be curious and intrusive about your partner's past is different.

Bottom line: this kind of information might come naturally without someone having to ask for it and in that context it is totally fine.

Sorry english is not my native language so maybe I am not making it clear enough.

IncreasePosts
0 replies
4h2m

Maybe - or maybe they just have different viewpoints on sex than you.

Do you think it would be okay to ask someone how many kittens they have stomped to death in the past? And, if the answer is greater than zero, to break off the relationship?

lupusreal
5 replies
5h46m

Eww, asking your prospective partners about their personal history? That's like so creepy!!

prmoustache
3 replies
5h4m

If the number of ex or sexual intercourses is the one of the first questions you ask when you are in the "prospective" state, yes that is creepy. And a huge warning sign that you are probably a toxic person.

I don't care about ex partners. I'd rather know if my sexuality is compatible with that person and if that person is comfortable/confident with their sexual life.

lupusreal
2 replies
3h8m

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.

prmoustache
1 replies
2h27m

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.

lupusreal
0 replies
1h14m

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.

raxxorraxor
0 replies
3h41m

It is like asking for your surname. Way too personal!

standardUser
2 replies
4h25m

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.

prmoustache
1 replies
1h17m

sharing != asking

standardUser
0 replies
1h3m

Of course I'll ask once we've achieved an appropriate level of intimacy to discuss such topics.

samatman
0 replies
1h50m

Are you one of those creeps who asks prospective employers about their work history before hiring them?

Freak_NL
10 replies
10h47m

Wait, you would seriously hold that against a potential mate if they were open about it and honest about their motivations?

lynx23
5 replies
10h41m

Er, yes. Without a question. Would you date an ex-prostitue?

hungie
1 replies
5h1m

If we connected, why not? I guess I'd make sure we both had clean sti panels before engaging in sex, but I'd do that with any partner.

"They used their dick or vagina to make money" is not any different to me than "they used their brain or hands to make money".

alt227
0 replies
3h44m

Thats a fine opinion, and I fully agree with you.

However its slightly different to the discussed point here, which is that people who use their dick or vagina to make money publicly can later have that used against them.

Theres nothing wrong with dating a sex worker, but when you want to make them a wife and have children, there becomes a risk that some crazy drug addict is going to spot them in the future and do something. Mabye they are going to call out to your wife while she is dropping the kids off at school. Maybe they will be a bit more sinister and threaten to send old OF videos to your kids ands kids teachers email address unless you give them some money, or do it again etc.

These are of course hypotheticals, but they have happened in the past and it is a risk, however small, of having an ex sex worker as a life partner.

groestl
1 replies
10h33m

How would you even know if somebody you like had engaged in transactional sex before?

ljsprague
0 replies
10h7m

He admitted it in an attempt to get me back.

Freak_NL
0 replies
10h26m

As long as she matched with me on a personal, intellectual, and moral level, and is a good match in general, sure. I would like to understand her motivations for doing so of course, but that's what dating is all about.

Besides, if some other hypothetical perfect match told me she still went to church until her 25th and actually believed all that stuff I wouldn't dismiss her outright either for doing something so silly, but similarly seek to understand her first.

beaglesss
1 replies
10h19m

I wouldn't and I haven't, and I have dated a sex industry worker.

BUT

When I dated someone in the industry I quickly realized why many people avoid such workers. It's highly correlated with HEAVY drug use, severe mental illness, and sad family stories. Not challenges lot of people looking for in a relationship, especially if they want children.

mrguyorama
0 replies
2h6m

Oh wow, god forbid you date someone who wasn't as privileged in their past.

I get what you are saying, but nearly everyone who has ever lived is full of baggage. After a certain age, any relationship you start will involve talking about all the bad shit you both experienced, how it affected you, how you've grown and dealt with it, etc. Just be an adult about it.

What matters is whether a person who had a bad past is willing to put in the effort to deal with it. A former heavy drug abuser who sought out some form of treatment or has largely healed is a fine partner. A partner who is still sneaking out and stealing to get their fix is much less so.

It's really really easy to just not hold someone's past against them too hard if they are demonstrably a better person currently.

trackflak
0 replies
10h9m

The fact that you think her giving her intimate self away to thousands of thirsty simps isn't going to have an impact on your future together is charming.

Have some pride and self respect.

raxxorraxor
0 replies
5h47m

I would. I have a different relation to sexuality and intimacy. Never say never to love, but it certainly wouldn't help.

Fargren
3 replies
7h27m

I would be in a relationship even with a current OF-girl. Not because "feminism told me so", but because I don't see anything wrong with it.

Would you not have a relationship with someone you like and likes you back? Because patriarchy told you so?

almatabata
1 replies
6h36m

Would you not have a relationship with someone you like and likes you back?

For a lot of men the knowledge of the OF carrier kills the attraction that they had. Just like some women lose attraction when they learn that you subscribe to OF content.

alt227
0 replies
3h41m

Just like some women lose attraction when they learn that you subscribe to OF content.

Well said.

vagrantJin
0 replies
7h1m

Patriarchy explicitly tells us so.

alt227
26 replies
10h51m

This is not about gender or sex. This is about any person creating damage for their future selves online. Whether you like it or not, people running businesses and hiring people, or school teachers etc, have opinions and views of their own. These factor into their decisions when they are interacting with you through daily life.

If somebody who takes a dim view of promiscuity sees that you have an only fans account, they are going to immediately have bias in any decisions that involve you. This is just a fact of life, and nothing to do with the gross reduction of 'women needing to be pure'.

standardUser
13 replies
4h28m

People used to say the same about getting divorced or getting a tattoo or having a child "out of wedlock" (even the terminology sound hopelessly outdated).

Maybe think about which side of history you prefer to be on.

alt227
11 replies
4h20m

These things you mentioned are all still looked on negatively by some people. My grandma curses 'bastards' and children 'out of wedlock'. People still lose out on jobs for having face and neck tattoos, its in the media regularly.

In exactly the same way as having an OF account, its up to the person doing these things to judge the consequences of whether they are happy with some people in the world looking down on them.

standardUser
10 replies
4h16m

These things you mentioned are all still looked on negatively by some people.

I don't know anyone who has been denied a job or an opportunity because of those issues. I also don't know anyone who has been denied an opportunity because they made adult content. Does it happen? Absolutley. Is it crippling to the point of ostracization? Not even close.

If anything, being able to filter out people who would look down on those attributes/experiences is increasingly becoming a net positive. I wouldn't wan to associate with someone who disparaged people because they have a piecing or like to take naked photos.

alt227
6 replies
4h7m

There was a big news story about this happening literally the other day

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/tiktok-tattooed-wom...

Is it crippling to the point of ostracization?

Nobody is arguing that it is, I think you are taking this a bit too far. All anybody has said is that some people have a dim view of sex work, thats it, and its true. Stop trying to extrapolate and assume further than the point in question.

being able to filter out people who would look down on those attributes/experiences is increasingly becoming a net positive

And there I was foolishly thinking we were all trying to move to a more tolerant and accepting world. Thats an incrdibly devisive opinion and is the basis for cancel culture. I for one would rather try to understand peoples opionins and discuss it with them rather than to 'filter them out'.

I wouldn't wan to associate with someone who disparaged people because they have a piecing or like to take naked photos.

Then we are very different people. I will associate with anybody, and try to find the best in them along with some common ground to work on together.

Want a better world? You can only change peoples minds with kindness.

standardUser
5 replies
4h3m

I don't know about you, but my life is too short to associate with troglodytes. Especially when there are so many amazing open-minded, open-hearted weirdos out there I can spend my days with.

alt227
4 replies
3h49m

No I dont consider myself so important that I am above interacting with anybody, nor do I think my opinions are better or more correct than anybody elses.

I think even if you were to spend your life just getting to know and educating 1 bigotted person so much so that they change they views just a little, that would be a life well spent.

standardUser
1 replies
3h38m

nor do I think my opinions are better or more correct than anybody elses.

Well, you should. If you don't, you should work on formulating more correct opinions that you believe in and can defend.

alt227
0 replies
2h49m

Well, you should

Thanks for telling me what to do!

you should work on formulating more correct opinions that you believe in and can defend.

No thanks, Im happy being open minded and willing to have good debates which can change either sides opinion. If you are not open to having your mind changed, you can not call yourself open minded.

Lets not let this devolve any further into a spat about opinion. Im not telling you yours is wrong, you can stop trying to tell me mine is now.

OkayPhysicist
1 replies
2h11m

Why are the bigoted people so important that it's worth wasting a perfectly good life appealing to them?

Fuck em. Progress happens when a new idea achieves enough cultural cache that the expressing the backwards view becomes a fringe belief, worthy of ostracization. 30 years ago, gay marriage was a contentious issue. Today, it's sociopolitical suicide to oppose it. Before that it was women entering the workforce, or desegregation.

alt227
0 replies
55m

Because if everybody had the same attitude as that, this world would be a horrible place to exist.

History judges people on how they treat the people they disagree with.

k33jf33l2
2 replies
3h53m

I don't know anyone who has been denied a job or an opportunity because of those issues.

How would they know? I suspect there's some selection bias at play here because it might not be legal to discriminate on this basis.

(...) because they have a piecing or like to take naked photos.

That's a strawman. The discussion doesn't concern people who "like to take naked photos"; it concerns people who do it for money. Depending on your values, that can be a significant difference.

standardUser
0 replies
3h26m

I was being mildly playful with my language, but I mean and intended to mean people who get naked for money. The difference is pretty minimal if you ask me.

NineStarPoint
0 replies
2h46m

Firing someone for having tattoos or having done sex work is completely legal in almost all US states. Generally speaking, the only things private employers can’t discriminate based on is things intrinsic to who the person is (race, sexuality, non-relevant disability), and religion. Past choices are completely legal to fire someone for, even if it has nothing to do with the job at hand.

bigstrat2003
0 replies
1h36m

People who are covered in tattoos (not just having a tattoo) and who have children out of wedlock are still widely looked down upon.

And there is very little that is more obnoxiously smug than making "right side of history" claims. If anything, I want to be on the opposite side of people who do that, because they're so fucking self-righteous I can't stand them.

habinero
11 replies
10h36m

That's true for every part of the human experience. People discriminate because of religion, etc. Sounds like you care too much about what other people think of you.

Anyways, my point is this sort of thing is rapidly becoming something nobody cares about, and that's due to feminism and it's a good thing.

benterix
7 replies
10h18m

While I somewhat agree with you, feminism and related ideologies created a whole new network of concepts of what is good and wrong, and these can bite you as much as the old prejudices. A good example is the Harry Potter lady: while I don't necessarily agree with her view, I do understand her concern and the right to express it - but for many people it's a criminal offense. Almost as if we replaced one cage with another.

defrost
2 replies
8h48m

Troubled Blood isn't marketing transphobia save in the mind of a reviewer with an axe to grind wrt Rowling's public statements.

The wikipedia page outlines the charge that it contains "pernicious anti-trans tropes" and continues:

    Nick Cohen, writing for The Spectator, argued that the transphobia accusations were baseless and slanderous, noting that Dennis Creed is investigated along with a dozen other suspects.

    He also stated that the book does not engage in the politics of women-only spaces and access to gender reassignment treatments.

    Alison Flood, writing for The Guardian, expressed similar views, arguing that people who have not read the book were making wrong assumptions based on a single review.

    Allan Massie, writing for The Scotsman, stated of the character of Creed that "there is no suggestion that he was transgender".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Blood

prmoustache
0 replies
6h4m

The point is not that these books include transphobia or not, the point is she chose to include transgender characters after all the drama on twitter relating to her likes and accounts she folllowed/supported.

She definitely used all that drama to sell books and benefited from it.

meowface
0 replies
5h38m

The prime suspect of the novel is a serial killer who cross-dresses. A book written years after she started campaigning near-daily about the threat of trans women. Those media outlets are being very misleading.

The Spectator is a right-wing British newspaper with dozens of anti-trans articles and op-eds. The Scotsman and The Guardian also have very anti-trans skews. (The latter less so, but definitely more anti than pro overall.)

It's fair to say that fearmongering about trans people isn't the central focus of the novel, but she obviously knew exactly what she was doing and why.

mrguyorama
0 replies
2h14m

the right to express it - but for many people it's a criminal offense

No it wasn't. Even in the UK, a supposed hellscape of unfree speech, she only finally got into any trouble when she repeatedly told outright and trivially knowable lies about another person. There's no guarantee she loses that court case either, so she hasn't exactly faced any repercussions for her speech. Companies are still making boatloads of harry potter content and it still sells like hotcakes.

habinero
0 replies
4h22m

If JKR is your worst example of feminism, we're just fine. She's extremely wealthy, popular, and 100% not in jail.

bigstrat2003
0 replies
1h34m

This is 100% correct. We haven't become more enlightened and tolerant, we have simply exchanged what we don't tolerate. That may or may not be good, but it certainly isn't worth patting ourselves on the back as if we're somehow better than our forebears.

graemep
1 replies
8h28m

People discriminate because of religion, etc

Which is illegal in most places.

habinero
0 replies
4h18m

Only for certain protected activities like employment or housing, otherwise it's entirely legal to be a bigot.

alt227
0 replies
10h13m

Thats the whole point, that some people view promiscuity and sexualising ones self no differently to smelling bad, or wearing scruffy clothes, or having a negative attitude. Its just another trait which some people view dimly.

severak_cz
0 replies
7h21m

But there is some backslash against feminism in western world and there are communities where OF is (and always was) off the limits. Also I think that some parts of OF are at least debateable from feminist POV.

groestl
0 replies
10h58m

And it's not just that it's no longer acceptable (as a normative declaration), people just stopped caring. At least in a bubble that's large enough so you can lead a comfortable life without any serious ramifications.

kwhitefoot
24 replies
9h8m

the additional toll it will take on the creators in terms of social ostracism, future prospects, future opportunities, and mental health.

Is it such a big problem nowadays as it used to be? My impression is that society in general, and younger people in particular, have become more tolerant of such things; at least in Northern Europe.

brightball
14 replies
8h43m

I see discussions on Reddit periodically where it makes long term relationships complicated.

I’m an old married guy, but I can’t imagine dating and then finding out that the person you were involved with was doing that type of thing. In a friend group I wouldn’t even blink.

Based on the conversations I see, this seems to be a common experience.

Rhapso
13 replies
8h35m

Welcome to millennial reality, we don't begrudge anything non-harmful that people had to do to make ends meet.

I know too many people with masters degrees and student loans working food service to not think OF is smart if you can find your niche.

acdha
5 replies
6h59m

There are plenty of millennials who have conservative views about something, and don’t forget that the damage is done regardless of the motivation. From the perspective of the victim, it doesn’t matter whether the person who just sent their boss the link to their OF is a zealous right-wing Christian or an incel bitter about being turned down. Millennials are more accepting about sexuality on average but a double digit percentage of that large a cohort is millions of people.

bluGill
4 replies
5h10m

I doubt any boss would open an onlyfans link and if they tried I'd expect the company firewall would block it.

I could imangine a boss getting links to those videos on some other site that looks innocent [perhaps at home] but the boss is unlikely to do anything as those are what you do in private. The only exception would be if you work for a church where such is not allowed - and even then if it is a much younger you, you can rebent of your past sins.

the above is about work. If you were trying to marry the guy (who presumably isn't your boss as an ethics) it would be different some guys would not accebt that.

acdha
2 replies
2h41m

You would be so very, very wrong. Try searching the news and you’ll find plenty of examples of employers who feel they should have a say in what employees do on their own time - that’s most commonly schools but far from exclusive: the most common justification is that this somehow reflects on their corporate image but some will use more overtly religious justifications, too. This is especially common as people climb the ladder, so someone might have a decision they made in college haunt them decades later.

The other thing to consider is that it’s not just whether you get fired but also whether it has other negative effects like creating a hostile workplace with “jokes” or having to fend off harassers who think you’re easy or will acquiesce as the price of silence.

bigstrat2003
1 replies
1h46m

The sad part is that most people seem to be happy when businesses fire people for things done on personal time - as long as the person doesn't agree with the thing in question. I remember when Mozilla fired Brendan Eich, a lot of my "liberal" friends were all for it. They didn't care the least bit that it set a dangerous precedent for businesses to fire people for being gay, or being a sex worker in the past, or whatever else. They just were happy that someone they didn't like was being punished, damn the potential for collateral damage.

acdha
0 replies
1h39m

There’s a bit of a difference when it’s a corporate officer, and the action in question is not their personal freedom but attempting to restrict other people’s freedoms, including many of the people who would report to them. Someone having an OF doesn’t impact anyone else but there’s at least a valid argument that Eich went beyond his personal freedom of speech when it came to materially contributing to the removal of rights from gay people.

I’m not saying there’s no room for disagreement there but simply that the two problems aren’t identical.

tivert
0 replies
3h5m

> From the perspective of the victim, it doesn’t matter whether the person who just sent their boss the link to their OF

I doubt any boss would open an onlyfans link and if they tried I'd expect the company firewall would block it.

Attachments are a thing. If someone's trying to get someone harmed by outing them, I'm sure a good number of them would include an image directly in the email.

I could imangine a boss getting links to those videos on some other site that looks innocent [perhaps at home] but the boss is unlikely to do anything as those are what you do in private. The only exception would be if you work for a church where such is not allowed - and even then if it is a much younger you, you can rebent of your past sins.

I really doubt that's the only exception, or even the biggest exception. At a minimum, I'd think OnlyFans would probably disqualify anyone from working with young kids and many positions where the employee represents the company to the public. I wouldn't be surprised if having an OnlyFans would be considered evidence of poor personal judgement, and exclude the performer from even more jobs.

elzbardico
4 replies
5h30m

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.

kwhitefoot
2 replies
5h17m

Could you explain why?

jajko
0 replies
2h24m

Human mind, good character, good heart... are all very fragile things, good one can be broken rather easily, a broken one can hardly ever be properly mended back without major cracks that keep coming back ie under stress or hardships.

Nothing is impossible and I talk about lets say rather about unprobable matters. If you want to take additional risks on top of usual risks with new relationships, be anyone's guests, but they are there.

Or maybe you don't care if you have a stable relationship (hardly ever the case but it happens), also fine. At the end, you can approach relationships as probability game, and folks normally want to tilt it in their favor.

AtlasBarfed
0 replies
4h34m

Sociopathic exploitation of simp psychology is not a positive character trait.

Feminism of course wants to keep sacrosanct the right of women to manipulate the male sex drive for any and all purposes with no consequences.

hungie
0 replies
5h7m

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.

bigstrat2003
0 replies
1h45m

Yeah no. I would never be in a relationship with someone who did sex work in the past. I can easily be friends with a former (or even current) sex worker, but I can't stomach sharing the intimate parts of a romantic relationship with other people.

1980phipsi
0 replies
8h20m

You're speaking for all millennials?

fleischhauf
4 replies
8h54m

that's the thing, the more people do it the more it gets accepted. the same is happening with drugs for example.

standardUser
0 replies
4h30m

That's only young people.

random9749832
0 replies
3h50m

It is worse here because it is competitive as well. People get incentivised to do things they normally wouldn't in order to please whatever algorithm is driving the content on the site. A race to the bottom.

prmoustache
0 replies
8h45m

And the more it is diluted by the sheer number of people involved in it.

standardUser
1 replies
4h31m

What toll exactly do you expect people to have to pay? I've been naked on the internet for money. That content is still there. It has not impacted me adversely in any way, nor has it had a negative impact on the many women I know who have created adult content. If anything, for me it has been fun and liberating.

I think you're just projecting.

random9749832
0 replies
3h51m

"Northern Europe". Yeah maybe within the White population that is shrinking. You people need to wake up up from this ultra-liberal crap unless you want your population to die off.

I-M-S
0 replies
8h8m

In fact, it might be a great way to filter out narrow minded people / organizations you don't want to deal with anyway

jappgar
14 replies
6h57m

The problem here is that ceratain members of our society think sexuality is immoral and that sex performers deserve ostracism.

The idea that someone shouldn't be hired for a job because they have/had an OF is puritanism plain and simple.

I expect that fewer people actually care about the "morality" and simply want to use morals as a weapon against women in the workplace.

tpurves
6 replies
5h6m

This. This is the real social problem we should be fighting. SW should not impinge on career or social status.

As a hiring manager, if anything I'd want to consider sex performers as a green flag in a job history. Speaks to resourcefulness, social skills, courage and self confidence.

yieldcrv
5 replies
3h26m

And your women in tech won’t be SWERFs

last two decades all the representation was sex worker exclusionary, fighting for a libidoless morph of the corporate world, talking over and on behalf of any women that thought or acted differently

glad that was temporary

booth babes and atmosphere models coming back soon

jappgar
1 replies
3h13m

only if i can be a booth hunk

yieldcrv
0 replies
2h29m

it’ll absolutely be the inclusive version

Der_Einzige
1 replies
3h1m

Not in a million years. Men’s sexuality is a bad, no good, evil, unethical thing.

All types of “objectification” have been deemed extremely unethical and immoral. Progressives think you’re a horrible person if you take part in any kind of beauty pageant or other activity which causes objectification.

yieldcrv
0 replies
2h20m

You jest, but it’s easy to retort using their same phrasing

“that sounds gendered” and if it leads to them being unable to distinguish why it isn’t, then you get to call them sexist and they're out of your way and the company forever, you get to morph it to something more entertaining and libido inclusive

alternate path is to talk about the importance of consent, nonconsensual objectification is bad, every objectionable action is okay if its consensual

third path is to point out how they cant speak for the women involved, or how they neglected to elevate the voices of those most affected. many of which are very prideful of their work and are waiting for that kind of representation and allyship. the bonus here is that there likely are secret sex workers in your organization already, and they’ll reveal that to you after you use their even more progressive phrasing against the misandrist

beaglesss
0 replies
2h45m

Id make sex work legally equal to other work.

Of course a consequence of that would be the engineering boss can ask the team to pole dance, and if they refuse they can be fired as easily as they could be for refusing to take out the trash.

ghastmaster
3 replies
5h2m

There's an inherent risk to hiring someone who has sexualized themselves. False allegations or true allegations are more likely to arise that put the employer in legal jeopardy.

It adds risk that another hire may not have.

makeitdouble
1 replies
3h16m

In this day and age it won't matter much.

You can hire anyone and have them target of allegations from colleagues. Them having a higher social status won't really help, we're post #metoo and there has been way too many cases of well regarded people being predatory. Whether the employee had some arguable past jobs, you'll have to do due diligence and get to the bottom of it either way.

BizarroLand
0 replies
3h2m

You say it won't matter much, but it does matter.

1: This is location specific. You should hide it if you ever want a decent job in a smaller town.

2: It is position specific. Many public jobs or jobs in childcare, teaching, or where the company relies on its appearance in the community will not hire someone with a history of sex work in whatever form it takes, and if you hid it to begin but the truth came out you will at best receive backlash for it and at worst be immediately fired (or fired as soon as the paperwork clears).

I have nothing against sex work in any form, but our society as a whole has a strong reaction to it and it will be at least 50 years before we get over that.

jappgar
0 replies
4h1m

"sexualised themselves"

I would say there's a greater risk hiring sanctimonious prudes.

AtlasBarfed
1 replies
4h30m

Pornography is exploitation of the biological male sex drive.

merrywhether
0 replies
3h40m

Are action or horror movies exploitation of the biological adrenaline drive? Every leisure activity is appealing to more than just hyper-rational thought.

numpad0
0 replies
2h25m

Entirely unironically I believe that that first line is the prime cause of crashing birthrate. Surely labor exploitation contributes substantially followed by urban over-population, but THAT has to be it.

Japan's actually got the least-worst birthrates among Far East, and everyone knows what it's best known for on the Internet.

prmoustache
13 replies
8h45m

OTOH this is not the same as "VHS" porn of the past decades.

A few decades ago, there weren't that many "productions", performers were much fewer and some porn performers name were known by anyone, regardless if you had seen porn with them staring or not. A person getting out of the business and trying to make a new career would have a high chance of meeting people, especially men, in real life who might have seen at least one movie.

Nowadays pornhub and onlyfans are flooded by wannabee independent performers. Even the most addicted to porn can't possibly follow and keep track of more than a tiny subset of performers. So there is a good chance you can still have a career alongside it or switch from OF to a non sex related career easily.

acdha
3 replies
7h8m

Even the most addicted to porn can't possibly follow and keep track of more than a tiny subset of performers. So there is a good chance you can still have a career alongside it or switch from OF to a non sex related career easily.

This is dangerously wrong coming at least a decade after there are entire communities devoted to unmasking performers’ real identities and multiple reverse image search tools exist as apparent businesses. That used to be a human-driven practice - I first heard about it coverage of the Chinese internet mobs from the perspective of victims of misidentification - but like everything else it’s reportedly adopting AI. Here’s a story which got a bit of discussion a few years back:

https://thenextweb.com/news/creepy-programmer-builds-ai-algo...

One of the big things to remember is that these systems don’t need to be perfect, or even close, to cause harm. Even if they were only 10% accurate, that’s still a lot of people living with the question of whether the person they just met knows or whether today is the day some nut sent those links to HR. You can’t rely on getting lost in the crowd any more.

prmoustache
1 replies
4h59m

The fact these tools and some creeps exist doesn't mean your actual coworkers in your career will use those to find you.

And more importantly, said creeps would be the one who would have an inappropriate behavior in the workplace regardless of the tools they have at their disposition.

acdha
0 replies
2h7m

It doesn’t guarantee it, no, but it does mean the odds are rapidly getting higher.

It’s also severely optimistic to think that the guy doing it will suffer the consequences: if you search the news, you’ll find plenty of examples of cases where someone thought they knew the attacker but wasn’t able to prove it. Moreover even if they could prove it and the attacker did suffer consequences, it won’t magically wipe everyone else’s memories.

noisy_boy
0 replies
6h1m

That is assuming that the identification will be solely driven by random individuals. However, expect there to be, if there already aren't, professional services that will do that in an organized way e.g. somebody may hire them for building an online presence profile of a future spouse. With the advent of AI and scaling afforded by cloud, such initiatives will only get more effective.

graemep
2 replies
8h32m

There must still be a substantial risk that someone would find out at some point? Once one person knows gossip spreads.

SXX
1 replies
8h5m

I would bet lot of producers and consumers live in different countries. A lot of online porn is produced in eastern europe and ex-USSR and societies there a lot less prude and religious compared to US. Some bullshit politicians might state otherwise, but US is far more conservative.

broken-kebab
0 replies
7h35m

I would dare to disagree, and my source is meself as I'm from the region. You're mixing up social conservatism with protestantism apparently. For starters, Eastern Europe is quite a big thing. Some parts of it are very religious, and some completely not. But it's not the point: it's absolutely not OK on a mainstream level of society of probably all EE, and former USSR countries to earn on onlyfans. And FWIW being publicly known as a subscriber puts LOOSER over one's forehead

defrost
1 replies
8h34m

So there is a good chance you can still have a career alongside it or switch from OF to a non sex related career easily.

I have no comment on the morals and ethics but as far as modern technology goes; most if not all of OnlyFans finds its way to darkweb | pirate | hoarder megasites where there's always a few because-we-can obsessed techlords training facial recognition, gait recognition, and seeding AI generated VR porn engines, etc.

We can be certain that any woman with an OnlyFans portfolio will face that being dragged up later in their life if they are at all slightly public.

They do have the modern available hand wave explaination of "deepfake by weird ex" that becomes more and more believable each passing day.

prmoustache
0 replies
4h57m

We can be certain that any woman with an OnlyFans portfolio will face that being dragged up later in their life if they are at all slightly public.

I fail to see how it would be limited to women with an OF portfolio and not any female with an instagram/tiktok/facebook/linkedin account? Deepfaking is an online abuse problem that can reach anyone who has a public photo online on the internet.

crossroadsguy
1 replies
7h40m

Actually in modern times it could be blink of an eye of a search if someone wants to find and has the motivation. In some cases such a search result match/suggestion might as well be inadvertent. But easy nonetheless.

seper8
0 replies
7h38m

pimeyes.com does exactly this.

tivert
0 replies
3h17m

Nowadays pornhub and onlyfans are flooded by wannabee independent performers. Even the most addicted to porn can't possibly follow and keep track of more than a tiny subset of performers. So there is a good chance you can still have a career alongside it or switch from OF to a non sex related career easily.

Your model of "social ramifications" seems to assume no one ever talks to anyone else, which is dead wrong. So to see problems, the only thing that needs to happen is one person needs to see their porn out of maybe the 1000 people who could recognize the performer IRL, then a rumor starts and a significant fraction of the 1000 (and more people besides) find out. No fame required.

Then the problem can balloon if another person out of that 1000 is angry with the performer, and decides to dox them by creating a website or posting that explicitly outs them to anyone who searches their name on Google.

Then, on top of that, there's all the facial recognition tech that's floating around, which is basically a "go strait to jail, to not pass go" thing.

2OEH8eoCRo0
0 replies
5h42m

Similar to how job listings often ask for LinkedIn, I wonder how long until there is a field for OnlyFans or PornHub creator accounts. Dystopian and depraved, sounds perfect for this godless timeline.

bool3max
6 replies
11h4m

That issue exists in the context of all other novel "social media" careers as well.

tessierashpool9
4 replies
10h19m

not to the extent of having a video published where you have sex - to put it mildly.

debesyla
3 replies
8h53m

Yeah but having sex on tape isn't something special or shameful.

beaglesss
2 replies
8h47m

If you take a video of taking a shit mostly no one is gonna think you're immoral or shameful but if there's videos plastered everywhere of you shitting on cam for cash then it could be detrimental to your social standing.

wincy
0 replies
6h39m

Blippie the children’s show star has somehow come out unscathed after literally shitting on his friend while doing a Harlem Shake video. I’m not really sure how. I tell every parent I meet who mentions Blippi but it’s like trying to stop a river from flowing.

debesyla
0 replies
8h25m

I would argue that video of taking a shit could display video production and marketing skills better than, let's say, doing a socially unacceptable political rant.

But I agree that probabbly being super racist is currently more accepted in some social media than showing genitals. I'm not promoting it, of course.

__oh_es
0 replies
10h18m

Really?! I think putting rockets on youtube is a pretty far stretch from being a naive onlyfans creator…

highcountess
5 replies
5h58m

I agree, but it gets even worse than your individual impacts. All these, mostly women have now essentially made themselves vulnerable to blackmail both if their own feelings and views about things change, as well as if society/culture changes.

Beyond that, they are both now vulnerable to being pressed into service of unscrupulous criminal, as well as our current criminal government agencies, and they can also make themselves ineligible for many government related jobs outside of very specific roles, e.g., honey pots, femme fatale, etc. unless they are willing to expose their lurid past to partners, parents, and their community/social circles.

It is a little known idea that the government’s background investigations are more interested in whether you can be blackmailed and whether you are easily bribed (i.e., lack a moral or principled character) not what you actually did.

An example would be a woman who refused to tell her parents that she was picked up for shoplifting when she was younger, which her older brother, acting as her father to bail her out. She was denied a clearance in spite of being rather expert in her field, not because of what she did as a girl, but her inability to tell her parents out of cultural pressure, demonstrating that she could just as easily be pressured by anyone else.

Are these 18-22 y/o floozies going to want to come clean about their actions, even publicly, later in life when they have a career, children, a husband they snagged, and maybe want to run for some public office?

This is actually a national security threat on many levels, including for corporate espionage. “Hello Mrs Technical Manager of Corporate R&D, remember when you did OF in a past life you wanted to leave behind, it would be a shame if you didn’t tell us what you are working on and give us technical specs, and then somehow accidentally your old OF content coincidentally surfaced by being sent to all your coworkers and family members”.

It Is basically the Epstein operation on a lower level, larger scale, and future farming operation. It’s no coincidence that there are similarities between people involved with OF and the Epstein operation. The ramifications of this are massive national, social, and cultural security threats. And I say that based on modeling I’ve done but will leave out for the time being because it will distract from the overall issue.

Any healthy society would ban all OF type content immediately on national security threat grounds. And no, it is not free speech any more than giving secrets to hostile actors of any sort or level; state, corporate, or generally criminal. The only alternative would be to keep a public register of all people who have ever done pornography of any kind that anyone and everyone could look up. There should be no objections of course since it’s all fine, and it is being retained by bad actors anyways, so there is no reason it should not be public.

The only saving grace may very well be AI and its power to allow for obfuscation, i.e., there’s no telling what is or is not real anymore unless it is irl. See the end of the OP for reference examples.

almatabata
3 replies
5h41m

Any healthy society would ban all OF type content immediately on national security threat grounds

By this logic we should ban all extra marital relationships as well. Add to that mandatory DNA tests for all kids just in case.

People will do things in private that they do not want known. No amount of legislation will fix it.

alt227
1 replies
4h22m

I agree with what you are saying, and people should definitely be allowed to do whatever they like in private as long as it is legal and consentual.

That said, OF is not private, and that kind of negates your point.

almatabata
0 replies
3h18m

Aren't some of the interactions on OF private chats? Kind of like sexting and caming? Let us say you limit it all to one on one private interactions, it still causes the same issues you mention.

Der_Einzige
0 replies
2h54m

Requiring mandatory DNA tests (I.e the anti France) would be amazing! Men shouldn’t be on the hook to raise kids which aren’t there’s, and the men who is the biological father should be required by the state to do their job.

Banning infidelity is another thing entierly, but DNA parental tests are the bomb.

Der_Einzige
0 replies
2h57m

Not enough people point out the connection between hacking the male libido and powerful forces operating in the shadows with an agenda.

Men get so stupid when they think with their member instead of their brain.

This is well known by your local spymaster, and all nerdy HN types should be extremely suspicious of beautiful women asking them questions. Femme fatales and honeypots are some of the lowest cost, easiest ways to get powerful, horny men to spill the beans on just about anything.

mrguyorama
0 replies
2h34m

With traditional adult entertainment, creators are aware of the social ramifications (e.g., social stigma, familial ostracism, difficulty dealing with the future, and so on)

I don't know why you say this, as it is laughably untrue. The porn industry has ALWAYS filled itself with very very young women who were assured (by liars) their family and friends and coworkers wouldn't see it, promised they wouldn't have to do certain things that they then get pressured and bullied into doing, and giving the women zero control over the produced media, how it is represented, how THEY are represented, and how it is portrayed to the audience.

There's an immense amount of regret and "I didn't know" in the industry.

knodi123
0 replies
3h11m

Like the recent story about a woman who ran for congress in Virginia, and lost 48.7% to 50.7% after it came out that she'd made tons of (consensual, legal) porn videos with her husband and sold them online.

RandomThoughts3
164 replies
8h1m

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 basically commoditised distress and are encouraging some people often themselves in dire circumstances to prey on others to the benefits of the middle men. I find these new pimps scarier than the old sort in that they pretend to have clean hands.

qingcharles
36 replies
3h57m

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.

ehnto
16 replies
3h43m

Parasocial relationships don't require interaction, you could just watch a twitch streamer a lot. I think if we defined it by requiring interaction we would underestimate the percieved impact of these social phenomenon.

mudita
9 replies
3h35m

It not only doesn’t require interaction, the lack of interaction is what makes is parasocial.

jayd16
8 replies
3h16m

So like, movies are more para social because they have less interaction?

squeaky-clean
0 replies
1h6m

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.

nobody9999
0 replies
2h23m

So like, movies are more para social because they have less interaction?

More live TV/streaming series than movies, IMHO.

How many times have you heard someone say they just finished watching $SERIES and will miss their TV friends?

And with OnlyFans (I'm guessing here, as I don't use the platform), at least the sexual stuff there (is there other stuff?) it's like going to a strip club, except it's all recorded (and sometimes? mostly? more explicit) and instead of dollar bills in the garters, it's tips/subscriptions.

mudita
0 replies
2h41m

I wouldn’t say that movies per se are parasocial, but if you behave and feel like you have a relationship with somebody in a movie, then it’s probably parasocial.

To a degree it’s also quite normal to have parasocial reactions to personaes from media, it only becomes problematic once people substitute actual social relationships with extreme parasocial relationships.

jandrese
0 replies
2h15m

I think the size of the crowd matters here. Streaming feels more personal because you are doing it by yourself and the total number of people watching the same stream is probably quite small. You could even message them and they might respond. It's more personal than watching a movie or TV show. On a slightly grosser level you know deep down that there is zero chance of ever hooking up with Megan Fox, but with a random OF model that feels like it might be possible. Even if it really isn't.

An interesting comparison is K-Pop singers who are at the same time megastars with millions of devoted followers, but also carefully managed to always seem available for a relationship. A truly difficult bridge to cross, but they somehow do it and make bank.

NeuroCoder
0 replies
3h4m

I've never subscribed to any only fans so my only exposure is checking out twitch. I assume there's a difference in that movies don't act like they're talking to you as an individual person. Also, parasocial is a fairly newly emerging term and I don't think we can clearly define everything that facilitates it, but we can easily identify some of the outcomes

Maxatar
0 replies
2m

Well movies, tabloids and radio/music were the original mediums used to study parasocial relationships in the 50s.

Whether it's more or less parasocial than live streaming has more to do with quantity and access than it does the specific form of media.

IncreasePosts
0 replies
2h41m

No, because people don't usually form an opinion that the movie cares about them.

Groxx
0 replies
2h18m

On the assumption that there is a relationship (believed to be) involved: yeah, I would say so. Streamers (often) have a chat, actual interaction is possible in a way movies do not allow.

The closest equivalent you would get with a movie is to send fan-mail and get a response. Which people do, but I think it's safe to claim the frequency is much lower.

deepsun
4 replies
3h22m

But then what's the difference between live streaming and recordings? There's some magic in live streams -- people prefer to watch boring live streams instead of hand-picked recorded videos of best games/conversations/jokes.

danudey
2 replies
3h15m

Is this true, or anecdotal?

Personally, every time I decide "I'm going to check out this streamer's live stream" I always end up joining at some point where they're getting set up, they're taking a break, they're reading chat, they're eating soup... I've never actually tuned into a livestream I'm actually interested in.

Meanwhile, RTGame was one of the first gaming content creators I ever subscribed to, and all of his content is his twitch livestreams edited down to actually interesting clips or sections.

kyle-rb
0 replies
2h49m

I think different people prefer different things, and also different creators provide different things.

I enjoy smaller Twitch channels where the chat isn't going 1000mph because you can actually chat with other viewers. There's definitely a parasocial element if the streamer reads your message, but it's more that it's an online community with shared references and in-jokes.

Also the people I follow are mostly part-time streamers doing 3-4 hour streams a few nights per week, so they don't need many breaks like the ones doing all-day streams.

jajko
0 replies
2h32m

There is generally a TON of money to be made in live streaming in porn. A friend of mine, way before current gen of social media, bought 2 apartments and a sports car doing exactly that.

I'd say the audience willing to pay extra for that is very limited, especially once you move to lets say a very niche stuff, but oh boy they paid a ton. Live also means 2-way interaction, additional added value (and price).

vasco
0 replies
2h22m

Do you believe all livestreaming platforms combined have more views than youtube sans-livestream videos? I highly doubt that.

setgree
0 replies
1h28m

Regarding parasocial relationships in general, I like [0]:

a few exceptional people (many of them imaginary) get far more love than most people need or can enjoy.

This seems an essential tragedy of the human condition. You might claim that love isn’t a limited resource, that the more people each of us love, the more love we each have to give out. So there is no conflict between loving popular and imaginary people and loving the rest of us. But while this might be true at some low scales of how many people we love, at the actual scales of love this just doesn’t seem right to me. Love instead seems scarce at the margin.

Please, someone thoughtful and clever, figure out how we might all be much loved.

[0] https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/alas-unequal-lovehtml

whoopdedo
15 replies
3h52m

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.

alsetmusic
6 replies
3h26m

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’ve subscribed for one month to two different creators just to check the content. Neither was interesting enough to maintain a subscription. I don’t think the described behavior sounds nefarious.

taikobo
5 replies
3h12m

The part that they delete their account immediately afterwards?

aqme28
2 replies
2h9m

Buyers remorse after purchasing pornography? I don't know why you're surprised.

yamazakiwi
0 replies
1h23m

Or regular embarrassment, or I don't want to "get in" to onlyfans, just this one time then I'll delete.

luckylion
0 replies
1h2m

I suppose that hinges on what "a lot" means in that comment. If it's "a lot" in absolute values, that's very plausible. If it's "a lot" as a percentage, OnlyFans would have to have a high rate of account closures.

rockinghigh
0 replies
1h29m

Probably a combination of being a subscription model with auto-renewal and people regretting wasting money for this type of content.

paulryanrogers
0 replies
2h52m

Perhaps to avoid unintended rebill or make it less likely for a loved one to discover it.

MisterBastahrd
3 replies
2h41m

Sounds like normal human behavior.

The problem with subscription sites like that is that paying for a month's subscription gives you access to the entire backlog of the work that a person has been doing for years. There's only so much that an OF model is gonna be able to do in terms of posing before they've done all the angles that someone would want to see. Why pay for repetitive content when you can just pay for a month and download everything, wait a year, and then do it again?

If these sites were smart, they'd implement a 3 month rolling backlog and then a set add-on price for accessing additional months worth of content.

qingcharles
1 replies
1h49m

That actually sounds like a smart system. It would also increase the barrier for those who log in just to scrape the whole profile and upload it elsewhere.

jonathanlydall
0 replies
1h43m

Article points out that some OF creators do exactly this, certain content is gated to subscribers who’ve been around for a minimum duration.

Ekaros
0 replies
1h41m

Also I wonder if there is something per account anti-scraping... So you might be able to scrape everything with single account, but if you hit multiple models there is some limits? Never used OF, but could be a some limitation.

qingcharles
0 replies
1h51m

She's had essentially zero chargebacks that I know of. She's tried to figure out if it is just guys in relationships who want to check her out and then clear up all the traces?

paulryanrogers
0 replies
2h53m

IME testers do the minimum to get a purchase go / no-go then immediately drop off. They don't bother trying to automate clean up.

numpad0
0 replies
1h10m

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.

knodi123
0 replies
3h25m

Sounds like it, and I'm sure it is sometimes... but it's also legitimate behavior from people struggling with guilt or self-actualization. At least as far as internal fraud detection, a lot of sites like these have had to re-think what kind of behavior is a red flag. For instance, it's also common for sellers to have multiple separate identities on these sites, where they may re-sell the same content but they act as totally different personalities. On any other site, like say Facebook, that would definitely be a fraud indicator. On adult sites.... less so!

infinitezest
1 replies
3h13m

You mention that OPs conclusion Doesn't align with the stats, but then you only provide a single data point. Are there other stats that you were referring to?

qingcharles
0 replies
1h47m

OK fair point, but all the other creators she speaks to say the exact same thing. Nobody talks.

But that really reflects the Internet in general. How many people browse HN vs. vote vs. comment?

tonymet
0 replies
2h47m

Do you pay ?

agumonkey
34 replies
5h24m

The shocking part is how new generation have a fully rational reinterpretation of all this, they call it "ethical sex". It's beautiful to them (probably in contrast to the boat loads of issues IRL social and intimate relationships can bring with them). And anything not aligned with their view causes a lot of angry arguments.

antimemetics
14 replies
4h14m

Every new generation is worse than the one before them

Demiurge
10 replies
4h0m

Dtaisk Afai. Cof Lemma, 19:1, 2, 549-552 / https://www.jstor.org/stable/25414613

Let me first give you four quotations.

Firstly: “Our youth loves luxury, has bad manners, disregards authority, and has no respect whatsoever for age. Our children today are tyrants; they do not get up when an elderly man enters the room—they talk back to their parents—they are just very bad.”

Secondly: “I no longer have any hope for the future of our country if today’s youth should ever become the leaders of tomorrow, because this youth is unbearable, reckless—just terrible.”

Thirdly: “Our world has reached a critical stage; children no longer listen to their parents; the end of the world cannot be far away.”

Finally: “This youth is rotten from the very bottom of their hearts; the young people are malicious and lazy; they will never be as youth happened to be before. Today’s youth will not be able to maintain our culture.”

The first quote came from Socrates (470–399 B.C.); the second from Hesiod (circa 720 B.C.); the third from an Egyptian priest about 2,000 years ago; and the last was recently discovered on clay pots in the ruins of Old Babylon, which are more than 3,000 years old.

ethbr1
2 replies
3h37m

I mean, all of those civilizations rose and fell, so there was certainly a point at which the productivity level was no longer sufficiently globally dominant.

kurthr
0 replies
3h13m

That's the thing, everyone can be right here. You don't want to regularly yell "fascist, racist, pimp, rapist" or the power of those words disappears. At the same time, if you refuse to use the words when they apply, then their power is irrelevant. Stability breeds complacency, complacency breeds contempt, contempt breeds instability.

The Kids perceptions and mores change every generation (both in some multidimensional average and in their dispersion) based in response to their elder's beliefs and their material conditions. Those changes could be destructive or not, but the idea that "there is no truth" or we've reached "the end of history" mark a more dangerous part of the cycle.

deepsun
0 replies
3h11m

Some historians say that the main cause for the Fall of Rome is rising inequality. Initially, society was mainly based on small farmers/warriors, doing war close to their home.

But as Rome grew, wars tended to get farther and farther from home, so farmers could no longer tend to their farms, and also large influx of slaves made them noncompetitive against large slave-owners. So they had to sell their farms to those large owners, exacerbating the problem even more.

I honestly don't know any single revolution that happened for any reason other than inequality.

knodi123
1 replies
3h17m

Firstly: The Plato quote is fake - It was crafted by a student, Kenneth John Freeman, for his Cambridge dissertation published in 1907.

Secondly: Hesiod was right, his culture no longer exists. ;-)

Thirdly: Yep, that quote is fake too. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/10/22/world-end/

Can't find any sources on that fourth one, but I suggest that the British Medical Journal might want to update their article.

Demiurge
0 replies
54m

Good to know, appreciate the review :)

hyggetrold
1 replies
3h45m

"It seems like nobody wants to work these days" has been a refrain since ancient Mesopotamia!

Demiurge
0 replies
3h23m

That's probably why they call it work! :D

bigstrat2003
0 replies
1h56m

Veracity of the quotes aside, people always bust this sort of thing out like it proves that the current young people aren't so bad. But if anything, it convinces me that these historical figures were probably right! I can see, with my own eyes, how bad my own generation is (let alone those after me). So if that's the case, then maybe the ancient old guys were right in their cases as well.

bazoom42
0 replies
3h16m

The Socrates quote is certainly fake. Are the other quotes from the same source?

frogpelt
1 replies
4h11m

Until there’s a great revival/revolution. Then we start over.

doublepg23
0 replies
2h55m

Only 426,875 years of Kali Yuga left!

kubb
0 replies
3h55m

Please someone contribute the “bad times create strong men” meme.

afavour
8 replies
4h6m

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. OF models offshoring their DM responses so their clients think they’re having conversations with the model when it’s actually some dude half the world away. Or using AI for the same, which I’m sure is increasing exponentially.

It’s going to be interesting to see what happens when AI is able to generate on demand video/photo and chat that’s realistic enough to satisfy an online client. If people are specifically told it’s AI will they be content with that? Or will they still want an actual real human? We're not exactly rational creatures at the best of times so it’ll be fascinating to see. We’ll have gone from the phone sex lines of yore, where you are interacting with a real human even though they’re definitely not the human you’re imagining in your head, to an AI video chat where you’re seeing exactly what you want but there’s nothing behind it.

ethbr1
2 replies
3h44m

OF models [...] using AI for [answering DM responses]

This seems like OF's Etsy trap moment.

On the one hand, scaling creator:individual_fan multiples via AI assisted messaging = $$$ (to creators and OF)

On the other hand, it canabalizes their core business value tenet -- authenticity.

It'll be curious to see which path they choose, and if it ends up playing out similar to Etsy. I.e. temporarily increasing their revenue while erroding their brand, then having to tack back once they realize how dire things have gotten in customers' eyes.

naijaboiler
0 replies
1h38m

Embracing gen AI is absolutely the wrong move for a content creators. People are not paying for visuals and conversations. They are paying for a genuine human to human interaction. If you take away that part, you’re left with worthless pixels on a screen

mrgoldenbrown
0 replies
3h29m

Doing it with LLMs may be new but the idea of farming out the fan interaction to an army of gig workers plus automation is well established, including automation for suggested replies, keeping track of past interactions, etc.

mensetmanusman
0 replies
2h52m

Marriage rates are down nearly 80% and it matches exactly the decline of births. So the slippery slope did work on reducing population growth!

deepsun
0 replies
3h18m

I think people would still prefer "real" content, same way as they prefer live streams to recordings for some reason (hey, handpicked recordings are objectively better!). Same way as people want "real wood", and "real leather", even when there're objectively better alternatives.

That said, people only need to _believe_ it's real.

codeAligned
0 replies
26m

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.

Wait, are you intentionally ignoring the fact that OF is the middleman? Because it definitely is, making about 1 billion dollars off of 5 billion dollars of transactions. Or are you saying OF is a "good non-toxic middleman".

chongli
0 replies
3h19m

removal of toxic middlemen that stand between the model and their customer.

...

OF models offshoring their DM responses

I mean this sounds to me like the toxic middlemen have changed form, rather than gone away. Now the toxic middlemen work for the performer, rather than the other way around. But they're still toxic and their toxicity is now directed at the buyer instead.

Tyr42
0 replies
1h28m

You might be interested in the latent space podcast about using Ai to do exactly this, as compared to offshoring.

https://www.latent.space/p/nsfw-chatbots

throwanem
2 replies
2h16m

I'd be fascinated to see an ethnological elaboration of this concept, but nothing's turning up so far - not surprising, I think, but I wonder if you could point to something.

agumonkey
1 replies
1h28m

Ethical sex? I couldn't talk long with the kids but I assume they took physical safety and freedom as only important aspect when approaching onlyfans. Teen girl idol can spread her legs if she wants to and no one can take advantage (unlike the pre me too era)

throwanem
0 replies
43m

Okay, but what I'm really looking for is the account given by its adherents.

I want to hear in their own terms, because I genuinely don't know if I can understand the idea in terms of my own experience. I can make it make sense to me, sure; anyone can do that with almost anything. I don't have a guide to how closely that would correspond to the sense made of it by the people who actually pursue it. Third-party opinions don't actually count for much there, but this might also be too new a thing to have been studied.

I don't know. It seems to me like it would have to be terribly lonely and unfulfilling. But that might just be in comparison with my own pre-Internet experience, or maybe something I'm entirely missing.

ethbr1
2 replies
2h58m

The younger generation has a weird relationship with the physical reality of sexuality, I expect because so much has been perfection-optimized in media portrayals of it, post-~2000.

If you go back and watch <= 90s movies and tv (PG-13!), it's amazing how pervasive and frank sexuality there is.^

In contrast to current mores that mandate sexy, but never actually talking about sex.

The deterioration of more honest discourse in mass media about realistic (read: fumbling, awkward, funny, vulnerable, spiritual) physical sexuality has left young folks ill prepared to enjoy that side of life.

^ Exhibit A: Hercules the Legendary Journeys (1994, produced by Sam Raimi!) S01E02, which would make most kids today cringe, despite just being scantily-clad depictions of consensual sexual desire and bawdy banter https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Tgz7burclcI

sss111
0 replies
1h34m

There are shows made today that capture the realistic nature of it. White Lotus or Scenes from a Marriage on HBO are good examples.

tivert
1 replies
3h55m

The shocking part is how new generation have a fully rational reinterpretation of all this, they call it "ethical sex". It's beautiful to them (probably in contrast to the boat loads of issues IRL social and intimate relationships can bring with them). And anything not aligned with their view causes a lot of angry arguments.

Do you have a source for that angrily defended "fully rational reinterpretation"?

I suspect the word for what's going on is rationalization not "fully rational reinterpretation" (e.g. "This is a thing we're doing, therefore it's good because we do it. Let's reevaluate everything else to achieve that result.").

agumonkey
0 replies
1h33m

I wouldn't say rationalization considering the lack of experience of these teens. Lack of scope in life forbids this imo, hence my adhoc neologism.

These were redditors that were unhappy saying that being an only fan model is the laziest thing one can do. That's when they taught me about their concepts.

mrgoldenbrown
1 replies
3h32m

Every generation shockingly reinterprets things. Our generation "shockingly" interprets a mixed race couple kissing on TV as normal, instead of obscene enough to be banned.

agumonkey
0 replies
1h31m

I don't think recurrences of this kind are an infinite line that can apply forever. Usually I account for the generational gap when thinking, even though it's something that may evade my mind.

makeitdouble
31 replies
6h44m

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 should step back and look at it with a bit of distance. Is the content they're paying for really the same as you think is available for free, and do they even get it under the same conditions, in morality and circumstance.

Not knowing your life, it feels like you could have said the same towards people buying pricy concert tickets when there's royalty free music abundantly available.

commoditised distress [...] often in dire situations

The first step to alleviate these specific situations could be to stop marginalizing this kind of content and give them a regular professional status, instead of systematicly pigeon hole it.

SecretDreams
26 replies
6h33m

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.

itishappy
22 replies
6h20m

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

pfannkuchen
14 replies
5h7m

This comparison is backwards.

Listening to music performed in person by other humans is the natural way of things, like actually having sex with another human.

Recorded music is much more like pornography.

makeitdouble
5 replies
4h44m

I'm not sure I follow, how is listening to music performed by another human live different from watching another human performing a sexy act live ?

The analog to actually having sex would be playing with the band on the stage.

pfannkuchen
3 replies
4h31m

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 unnatural, like pornography is.

vunderba
0 replies
3h49m

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.

nullstyle
0 replies
3h58m

Practically speaking I think it must have been the latter.

This assumes music was made as a performance. Music can be (and i argue probably mostly was) people jamming together. Musician and audience are blurred in this scenario.

makeitdouble
0 replies
4h12m

I get how it could be seen as "natural", but I'm not sure to see value in that definition. From that token, most of human culture is unnnatural, but honestly it doesn't bother me much.

I'm glad we have books, even as it's not as natural as oral transmission. I love photography, I'm so glad we have chemical food that requires such a brewing process to come to fruition, and I have no desire to go back to a hunter gatherer society, I like civilization in general. And pornography is sure part of it.

roninorder
0 replies
2h3m

It's safe to say that the impact on one's emotional and mental state is vastly different. This is a wider discussion of porn vs music, not necessarily OF vs recorded music though.

MichaelZuo
2 replies
4h57m

Following that logic:

‘Reading words etched into a stone or inscribed on papyrus by other human hands is the natural way of things, like actually having sex with another human.

Reading words created via machines is much more like pornography.’

itishappy
1 replies
4h48m

Words etched in stone? Bah! Words were created for speach!

For this invention will produce forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn to use it, because they will not practice their memory. Their trust in writing, produced by external characters which are no part of themselves, will discourage the use of their own memory within them. You have invented an elixir not of memory, but of reminding; and you offer your pupils the appearance of wisdom, not true wisdom, for they will read many things without instruction and will therefore seem to know many things, when they are for the most part ignorant and hard to get along with, since they are not wise, but only appear wise.

- Socrates

https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=3439

hooverd
0 replies
1h24m

He's not wrong- the average bookcel doesn't have the same sort of oral recall that storytellers of past had. Not that it's a bad thing.

vundercind
0 replies
2h18m

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 value almost totally away from anything but tip-top talent in those areas. Nobody in your family needs you to play music at get-togethers and parties—you’re worse and less-convenient than thousands of artists on Spotify. They don’t wonder with excitement what sort of sketches Uncle Robert will bring to the next holiday, to give to his extended family. At best, that kind of thing’s indulged and tolerated now. The demand is all but entirely gone.

I reckon it was a real belief of his, given he wrote of it more than once, and whose voice it was put in, the one specific case I can call. There’s a chapter in Bluebeard about it for sure (that novel’s kind of a whirlwind tour of most of the major themes and points of Vonnegut’s work—dunno if it was intended that way, but that’s how it turned out) and I know I saw it other places, can’t recall which books.

standardUser
0 replies
51m

There is plenty of live streaming porn as well. Not to mention live sex shows.

antimemetics
0 replies
4h11m

The natural way of things is to die at 30 of dysentery- I’m glad we are past that

flyingpenguin
2 replies
5h13m

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.

vunderba
1 replies
3h54m

I'm 100% with you. When people say that they go to these types of events and say things like they're "feeling the energy", I just can't understand at all. All I'm feeling is the massive amount of BTUs being emitted by humans packed in close proximity...

However, give me a good piano recital with elevated seating to be able to see the pianist hands, and I'll be there in a flash.

FireBeyond
0 replies
3h41m

How is a solo classical pianist's concert any less staged, rehearsed or repeated performance than any other concert, other than a (not so) vague sense of elitism?

Unless you're close, you're not catching the nuance of the pianist's hands any more than guitar licks from a guitar frontman. Indeed, many modern pianists are following in the footsteps of rock concerts and having live video camera work to capture these details for people not in the front 10 rows.

All this does is give vibes of "Area Man Constantly Mentioning He Doesn't Own A Television" (https://theonion.com/area-man-constantly-mentioning-he-doesn...).

SecretDreams
2 replies
6h5m

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".

tomhallett
0 replies
5h43m

Tom Petty said we were such a great crowd that we should all get on sail boat and go to Tahiti. Felt pretty personal to me. /s

itishappy
0 replies
5h51m

I think there's significant overlap in both.

Most OF content is not personalized. It might be consumed solo, but it's produced for a wider distribution. On the concert side, I feel there's a similar situation where you can pay a little to get the same experience as everyone else, or you can pay a lot to get VIP passes and a personalized experience.

Also, both situations are strongly dependent on the size of the fanbase. You're not going to get a personalized show from Taylor Swift or Bella Thorne, but smaller musicians and OF performers target that vibe exclusively.

marcosdumay
0 replies
3h40m

People go to concerts to socialize with the crowd, not with the artist.

makeitdouble
1 replies
4h22m

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 in trust and as comfortable as possible.

There's really nothing special about having people you pay be friendly with you.

mrgoldenbrown
0 replies
4h13m

The first time my dental hygienist asked a small talk question referencing something I said last visit, I was impressed by their memory/vaguely flattered . The second time it happened I was pretty sure they're just writing notes about what to say in my record. Especially when the new hygienist did the same trick :)

hooverd
0 replies
1h27m

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!

ant_li0n
1 replies
6h34m

The first step to alleviate these specific situations could be to stop marginalizing this kind of content and give them a regular professional status, instead of systematicly pigeon hole it

I dislike arguments made in this vein, it's sortof a way to intellectually dismiss someone's point without addressing it.

I share the grandparent poster's concern. Parasocial relationships feed us in a certain way, but do not nourish.

Don't get me wrong; I'd rather have OnlyFans than pimps. But that's not the point.

makeitdouble
0 replies
5h59m

I'm not sure what's to address about parent's point, in that it's already a focus of law enforcement, there will be widely popular polical campaigns to gather people with these inclinations, and it's the standard rethoric of most western societies.

I don't see the CrossFit like dogma of "if it's not working just do more of it" as beneficial in this topic.

I also don't like looking at a service like OF and only focusing on the extremes.

zpeti
0 replies
53m

Not knowing your life, it feels like you could have said the same towards people buying pricy concert tickets when there's royalty free music abundantly available.

Wow, What a great analogy. That really is almost the same except not with music but sexual attraction.

marcandre
0 replies
1h2m

it feels like you could have said the same towards people buying pricy concert tickets when there's royalty free music abundantly available.

The analogy holds. Most people don't pay concert tickets for the music itself. It's the experience, the crowd, the physical presence of the artists, etc.

paxys
20 replies
6h31m

It's way worse in the case of YouTube/Twitch than OnlyFans IMO. People have been paying for pornography/sex for millennia. It's just part of human nature. On the other hand an 11 year old throwing money at MrBeast...why?

raxxorraxor
7 replies
6h11m

The vast majority of people will not have ever paid for porn or sex though. Sure sexual indulgement in some form is human nature, but it always is a special group that uses such direct or indirect services.

paxys
6 replies
6h9m

The vast majority of people are also not paying OnlyFans.

raxxorraxor
2 replies
6h3m

That is what I meant, I understood you comment as "paying for OnlyFans" is human nature. I would dispute that as a general statement because I believe it is a very special demographic that does that.

paxys
1 replies
5h58m

Sure, but that "special demographic" has stayed consistent throughout human history. Which is why this entire market has existed for a similar period.

raxxorraxor
0 replies
4h0m

I would understand human nature to mean that it affects every human, but sure, after that definition I guess it remains some form of constant at least.

andrelaszlo
2 replies
5h29m

9.4% of men in an official Swedish study from 2017 said they have paid for sexual services (0.5% of women). It's a minority but still almost 1/10. I can only imagine that OnlyFans has normalized this behavior a lot since then.

There's also the narrative that people on these platforms are choosing to do this because they make a lot of money, and that it's less problematic than the rest of the porn industry somehow. I'm very sceptical about both of these notions.

AtlasBarfed
1 replies
4h41m

Ah the slippery slope of distinguishing dating vs pay for sex.

pfdietz
0 replies
2h54m

slippery slope

An excellent porn star name.

BeefWellington
4 replies
5h28m

Same reason why kids have paid for Transformers merch, Star Wars merch, band merch, etc.

It's a brand, they like it, they want to be reminded of it and show their love of it off. It creates an "in group" which is socially valuable. Streamers are nothing special in that regard.

fourside
3 replies
4h27m

There is an important difference between a kid spending money on a toy versus spending it on a person.

krisoft
1 replies
2h26m

Would you tell us what is that important difference? Just for those of us who can't read your thoughts yet.

bikingbismuth
0 replies
1h35m

I think the implication is that if a kid buys a toy they will have something tangible that they can play and interact with, but tipping/donating to a streamer doesn't provide that.

vasco
0 replies
2h20m

I had football jerseys with my favorite player's name on them growing up and I'd look up to my birthday to see if I got one or I had to wait another year. This seems like an arbitrary decision. I don't see any difference in buying a jersey of my favorite player or a kid now getting a t-shirt merch of their favorite youtuber.

philwelch
2 replies
5h14m

You can get porn anywhere. The selling point of OnlyFans is specifically the parasocial connection. These people are paying money to exchange DM’s with LLM’s and third world gig workers pretending to be their favorite porn star.

sirspacey
0 replies
5h10m

Porn once again predicts the future of social tech.

gspencley
0 replies
1h56m

You're making an assumption.

I owned an operated a "free" adult website for 18 years. For 15 years it was my primary source of income. During those years I always got a kick out of "there is so much free porn online, why would anyone ever pay for it?"

The way that my website worked was that it was very content-rich and content-focused. The content came directly from the affiliate programs that I was advertising for. Despite it being all advertising, I often got compliments that my website was "ad free." That's because I didn't push banner ads or anything intrusive. It was free content plus a text link that you could click on if you wanted more of that content.

The website shut down in 2022, and the bank accounts are all closed. But many of the affiliate accounts are still pulling rebills.

Most of the subscription based websites that were advertised were not websites that promised any sort of interaction with the performers or models. It was very obvious that you were paying for content, not social interaction and if anyone were ever confused as to that, the rebill numbers would have reflected otherwise. The fact that an indivdual subscription rebills is not a conclusive indication of a happy customer. But when so many in the aggregate rebill, it doesn't really paint the picture of a large number of people feeling duped. It's also worth noting that chargeback rates were nearly non-existent. I could count the number of times that happened over 18 years on one hand.

Now, if you've read this far thanks, I will acknowledge that we're talking about OF specifically.

At the risk of TMI, I subscribe personally to one adult content site: suicide girls. I am happily married, I'm not looking for any social interaction. It's purely eye candy. Many of the models on that site promote their personal OF pages, and while I haven't subscribed to any, I will admit that I've been tempted because they produce content that I like and I'm curious about what else they offer. I'm not at all interested in DM'ing them or trying to start some kind of parasocial relationship. I've watched a few live streams on SG, have even had some interaction in the chats in those ... but there's no desire what-so-ever to try and have some kind of "relationship." I've never tipped them or sent them money or gifts. Just the annually recurring subscription to the SG website.

People who are in difficult situations in life, have mental illnesses or physical disabilities may try and use online porn to fill a void in their life, and for some it may be unhealthy. People also stalk celebrities for the same reason. Yet we seem to make more assumptions and talk about it a hell of a lot more when it comes pornography for some reason. I'm not saying that there aren't social issues that are important to look at and talk about. But when it comes to porn there's such a taboo and willingness to shame others and make mass assumptions about their motivations even though we have very little idea of what we're actually talking about.

jayd16
2 replies
3h13m

I'm sure celebrities and socialites and thought leaders and such have existed throughout time ... But we've gotten really good at monetizing it.

steve_adams_86
1 replies
2h39m

I suspect it was always monetized as well, but the internet allows for both for a massive increase in followers and an increasingly easy path for money to move from the followers’ wallets to the celebrities. It seems new or unprecedented, but similar models have existed on smaller scales for thousands of years at least.

Ekaros
0 replies
1h38m

Think back to ancient philosophers. Who got students to pay for their work or students parents, or just outright donations... And later various artists both those creating works and performing them. Patronage is very old model.

magic123_
0 replies
6h21m

While I agree with the general sentiment of your comment, the specific example you used is not really relevant: MrBeast is not on twitch, and his revenue comes from youtube ads and brand partnerships. He also has 'classic' merch and several companies (burgers, chocolate bars), but he doesn't bring in any money from subscriptions/donations the way twitch streamers or onlyfan creators do.

tjs8rj
11 replies
6h30m

We’re the cohort putting our hand on the stove to remember you get burned.

Vices like gambling, obscenity, prostitution, drugs, etc are banned or heavily controlled societies over because they have significant negative cultural effects. “Why do YOU care what other people do in their private lives?” was always a stupid justification: if everyone in your community is addicted to vices, that DOES affect me.

hiddencost
5 replies
6h16m

Obscenity?

lazide
4 replies
5h48m

Do you think 2 girls 1 cup, blue waffle, or ‘the jar’ helped anyone in society to see?

If so, how?

Should they be required watching in elementary school? If not, why not?

samtho
3 replies
5h41m

Supposing the premise that these things were entirely unhelpful to society, I would argue that the obscenity specifically is not what makes these things unhelpful.

lazide
2 replies
5h39m

Then what was?

samtho
0 replies
5h24m

Depends on how you define helpful or how much of a requirement for content to actually be “helpful”.

A strict definition might require content to have academic or intellectual value (implied by the remark about it being shown in an academic context) but this would also exclude a vast majority of non “obscene” content. Further, if you could swap the obscene elements for non obscene elements, I would argue the “value” of the content, as measured by its helpfulness, stays the same.

This all moot, however, as it’s likely not the right conversation to have. There is more useful discussion to be had on harm caused as a result rather than any sort of value judgement.

flir
0 replies
4h37m

Not OP, but it is possible for something to be both "obscene" and "helpful" (maybe we should say "of value"?) Say... footage of Hiroshima? Or the liberation of concentration camps? I'd say those are examples of things that are both obscene and have value.

So I think you're looking for another property those videos have in common. It might be closely related to obscenity, but I think it must be a bit more nuanced than that. Why are those videos valueless? (I don't know the answer).

samtho
3 replies
5h46m

Yet humans have fared mostly fine as a whole with even a moderate level of those things, legal or not, consistently happening throughout history and cultures. The biggest problem we have is when these vices are driven underground so the vice itself is conflated with the additional risk of having to put one’s self in a dangerous situation to engage with it.

Looking at western culture (the only one I feel confident speaking about), we are still bound by puritanical values that were imposed as control mechanisms but managed to sneak their way into a set of cultural norms as a moral code despite their actual value to us not being evaluated and actively selected.

vel0city
0 replies
5h9m

Looking at western culture

It's not a "western culture" thing. Many western cultures do, sure. Many eastern cultures do as well. Not literally puritanism and that specific history, but very similar kinds of thoughts and ideas.

philwelch
0 replies
5h5m

There’s still value in curbing many of these vices. Smoking is a good example. You can smoke, but you can’t advertise cigarettes, you need to be an adult to buy them, you can’t smoke them indoors, and we’ve all been subjected to propaganda from birth about how smoking is bad for you. If you have all of that in place (which took decades for tobacco and now people are trying to ban it in some places), you can have legal vices.

asdasdsddd
0 replies
3h50m

It's absolutely not western nor is it puritanical. The value is clear, there is a wide funnel like no other from starting drugs to ending up on the street, etc. Other societies, asian, middle eastern, etc found their way to the exact same values, sometimes enforced much harsher by the state.

This libertarian stance where neither you nor the state should care about how your neighbors lead their lives is the exception, not the norm, and it has its merits, but the cost of this ideology is obvious.

knodi123
0 replies
3h15m

A better justification is, "prove that it's actually harmful using sources other than your gut", and "suggest a method for controlling it that doesn't almost immediately devolve into puritan witch-hunting, racism, and/or misogyny."

vunderba
5 replies
3h58m

Although Onlyfans is certainly more exploitative, I would argue that this concept of one-way parasocial relationships has existed since basically the dawn of humanity and likely has roots to our earliest fundamental tribalistic nature.

I mean look at the extremely popular K-pop bands, fans get insanely invested into these groups, following them, bringing glowsticks to show support, etc. Or the entire Japanese idol movement for that matter.

Or think about how people stand in line for hours just to get the signature of somebody at a convention.

I think this is just the way a lot of people are wired. I don't know if it's bad or a good thing, it's just something I've noticed.

RandomThoughts3
1 replies
3h33m

I don’t think it’s new per see nor that OnlyFans is unique in this. The K-pop exemple you bring forward is good and I guess you could see the Hollywood star system as a kind of precursor.

I still think there are multiple differences.

One is how OnlyFans has successfully turned everyday people into this source of para-social fixation for a multitude of small communities and somehow massified the issue.

The other and the main one for me is that in both the star system or the K-pop industry the system is a mean to an end - selling movie tickets or albums - while OnlyFans genuinely sells the illusion of closeness.

chii
0 replies
2h14m

selling movie tickets or albums

because OF models cannot realistically produce anything of that high production value to sell. They can take pictures, get videos shot, etc. And in any case, the closeness you speak also applies to the celebrity in mainstream industry.

zug_zug
0 replies
3h56m

I agree.

I do remember a study that people often think label their more popular friends as their "best" friends, but if you go ask THOSE friends, they label THEIR even more popular friends as their "BEST" friends. It's often asymmetrical.

Though tbh going too far down these rabbitholes usually isn't healthy/productive imo.

ThrowawayR2
0 replies
3h39m

Or how nerds are willing to argue about the superiority of Linux vs Mac vs Windows while having only faint notions of how to use each to their fullest extent or the workings of their internals. We on HN aren't immune from unthinking tribalism.

IncreasePosts
0 replies
2h39m

You say one-way parasocial relationships have existed since basically the dawn of humanity, but all the examples you give are of things that have only become popular in, generously, the last century.

sesm
3 replies
2h44m

clearly it’s not about the content per see which is a dim a dozen and available for free in trove.

I think there is a darker side there: many of those subscribers are minors, who discover this kind of content for the first time. That's why OF models stream on Twitch to expand their audience, there are plenty of kids who came there for Minecraft, but will end up subscribing to OF with mom's credit card.

DiscourseFan
2 replies
2h38m

So we should have a service, instead, that pairs up horny teenagers or puts them in group settings where they can explore their sexuality in a more directly social way? Or what do you suggest, that they don’t have an outlet for these urges?

sesm
1 replies
2h27m

I don't think I have a solution. I'm sure that Twitch is fully aware of this and gets their cut from OF subscriptions that came from Twitch links.

DiscourseFan
0 replies
2h13m

I have always advocated for legally regulated sex work that is provided to the population for free or a very low price through a scheme like national or universal heath care, which would immediately solve all problems related to sexual frustration and social isolation, but I think the christian conservatives would rather have school shootings and OnlyFans

raxxorraxor
3 replies
6h13m

I think it also is quite a special demographic, which is hard to nail down. There are a lot of people that don't have many social contacts but would never pay anyone for only fans. Perhaps you need to have a special character trait to be able to use such services.

But while there are successful people on only fans with either more or less clothes on, the vast majority of creators probably sell their dignity for a few dollars.

Agreed that there is something fishy about these new pimps. I guess there are still the conventional pimps too, but they now call themselves manager.

hungie
2 replies
5h14m

This framing, "sell their dignity", is your moral judgement (coming from your cultural, religious, or some other) background.

I don't see it as any less dignified than any other work. You sell your labor to someone who pays you less than the value it produces.

Now, if you want to argue that median creators get payed only a tiny fraction of their time, and like Twitch/YouTube it's a losing game for most, then we're on the same page.

raxxorraxor
0 replies
4h4m

You are correct, my value judgements are very likely influenced by my cultural background and experience, as are yours.

I do live in a country where sex work is legal. There is still a darker sides to the trade. I think customers do lose even more dignity. Or someone who does sex work because it is "empowering" compared to someone that is forced into it.

kidintech
0 replies
1h27m

don't see it as any less dignified than any other work

You do not, and that is your moral judgement. Rationalizing earning money by any means necessary is a very slippery slope, and the discussion is much more nuanced than popular media would lead you to believe.

kreims
2 replies
47m

The disturbing societal implications speak for themselves. Personally, I suspect a significant fraction of transactions on Only Fans or “influencer” platforms are money laundering or social engineering campaigns by deeply resourced actors. There may be a large number of clients that are bots making random subscriptions to keep the network alive and large enough to make moving targeted funds harder to observe.

A plausible scenario might be an FBI agent paying a confidential informant without creating an unexplained income stream. The FBI and friends disclosed spending around $0.5B on informants. The truth could be more. We don’t know what other agencies around the world spend. I imagine they aren’t putting cash in brown bags under park benches.

thefounder
0 replies
33m

You would be surprised how many people pay for OF content. The novelty is that the clients are picked using mainstream social media. Most actually believe they talk with the influencer while in reality the “influencer” doesn’t even know where its content is distributed(not that she cares). Chatters and voice-overs are the norm.

duckmysick
0 replies
25m

To clarify, in this scenario, the confidential informant would be a streamer or an influencer - a person that has a sizeable following, operates in public, and creates a lot of attention? And that there's a large network of such informants and none of them were compromised (had their true nature exposed in public)?

marxisttemp
1 replies
2h59m

I feel this way about strip clubs. I’m pretty libertine and think that if you can make money dancing naked, more power to ya, but the few times I’ve been dragged to a strip club all I can focus on is the clientele who as you say largely seem to be chasing this dark, parasocial connection that can never be what they need it to be.

morkalork
0 replies
2h44m

Burlesque shows are a 100% more fun than an actual strip club especially if they incorporate some good ol slapstick vaudeville routines in between the strip teases. The audience is also way less greasy.

derdi
1 replies
1h25m

[...] 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 just two or more people fucking. And it's the same as it was ten years ago. And yet... More of that content keeps being made. Porn production companies exist. Pornstars making money for fucking on camera exist. Clearly there are people willing to pay for new porn that will just end up on free-to-view sites anyway.

Your mental model of "it's all about the parasocial relationship" doesn't explain these facts. Thus your mental model can't be the whole truth. I suspect it's at most a fairly small part of the truth.

marcandre
0 replies
1h5m

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.

sulandor
0 replies
5h7m

parasocial relationships

sounds like you meant "professional courtesy"

riedel
0 replies
40m

It is equally disturbing if museums see themselves forced to to move to forced to only fans in protest because of prudish US corps governing the web [0]. I think if there would be more middle ground it would be less of a business model.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28887142

naming_the_user
0 replies
1h57m

A more accurate description I think is that "we" have bifurcated. It's another element of political division.

Almost everyone I know thinks that things like OnlyFans are embarrassing at best, and disgusting at worst. Sure, most of us look at porn, but admitting that you've paid for it and _especially_ admitting that you have a "favourite camgirl" or whatever would be properly cringe.

mensetmanusman
0 replies
2h54m

This has been true since television. My parents have nearly zero community but watch TV all day.

jimmaswell
0 replies
3h0m

clearly it’s not about the content per see which is a dim a dozen and available for free in trove.

The free stuff isn't always as good, especially if you want something of a specific niche (fursuits, cosplay, etc). A lot of creators only upload cut-down vidros or "trailers" to free sites with a link to their OF.

At least in my case, I simply see it like the Patreon model. I like supporting some of my favorite artists, especially with something like an ongoing comic series I'll get previews of and vote on polls to influence. Onlyfans is the same if I particularly like some creator. It's great that we can directly support content creators of all kinds now.

_the_inflator
0 replies
4h42m

Human reward system is magically and weird at the same time. To what extremes some visuals and sounds can bring people is fascinating.

tennisflyi
46 replies
18h48m

Seminal article (I guess), https://xsrus.com/the-economics-of-onlyfans

It’s just as easy to imagine demand for the “real thing” going down due to the emergence of more substitutes as it is to imagine the premium for parasocial authenticity going up. And yet only Generative AI “creators” will truly do whatever “you” want and only for you. And unlike real ones, they speak in every language and are available at any time (and eventually, in immersive 3D).

Disagree. When (AI is) mentioned it has a negative correlation. Real content will fetch a premium

nemothekid
29 replies
18h26m

It's the same pipe dream as "AI content creators will take over youtube".

There is no "formula" for success in the creator economy - the winners are largely random. A better way to look at it is there are 4 million humans out there trying every permutation to crack success, and ~400k actually do it.

Unless you have a sufficiently advanced AI agent that is both varying it's content and it's marketing strategy to the tune of maybe ~1000 different iterations it's unlikely we will see a version of OnlyFans that exists that is majority AI generated.

The "parasocial ai girlfriend" sounds like a flawed premise aswell. OF girls are not therapists - Cardi B, Bhad Bhabie, and others aren't raking in millions because they are good girlfriends (although that is part of the upsell). Social status plays a part in the most successful girls, people seem to subscribe because the creator is popular, especially if she's already built a platform elsewhere.

In short, social status does not have an AI substitute.

kiba
12 replies
17h54m

A good AI girlfriend wouldn't be a therapist but would mimics every aspect of a girlfriend, including arguments and fights and makeups, because that's how bonding occurs. That's going to be how successful AI girlfriend will be made.

jjmarr
6 replies
16h44m

Your assumption is that the status quo provides those things. Nowadays, people will break up as soon as they get "the ick" or just have a rotating group of people they see. Lasting relationships are much less common than they used to be because it's easier to switch partners.

People just want to chase a local maximum of constant validation that they're pretty/smart/correct. They don't see or understand the value in working through fights to create something beyond the sum of two people.

AI excels at maintaining that local maximum. It can confidently reassure you better than any human can even if you're wrong. AI partners following this are successful now and people in their teens and early 20s are being hooked en masse.

Historically, superior pieces of technology haven't displaced older incumbents when the learning curve is too steep.

I don't see why a person dating an AI partner that has lovebombed them for several years would switch to another AI (or a person) that starts fights and bickers. Even if it's better in the long-term, that's still a marked decrease in short-term satisfaction.

kiba
3 replies
16h0m

The whole point of having fights and arguments at just the right level is to maximize engagement, retention and ultimately making money for the corporation.

I was imagining the most diabolical addictive AI girlfriend. That's necessarily going to include 'negative' elements.

jjmarr
1 replies
15h16m

Implementing the cycle of abuse in an AI partner could be as impactful as the invention of the cigarette.

I'm now very concerned about hypothetical young men who enter into relationships with AI in university or high school, then graduate and have an algorithm abuse and take their money.

willcipriano
0 replies
15h0m

Your AI girlfriend that goes from crisis to crisis but with microtransactions.

"I need $34.99 for storage space or they are going to delete me, please save me white knight!"

"The met a nice guy yesterday and he was able to afford my premium package, the one that lets me feel more emotions, I just don't know if I feel for you like I once did..."

dgfitz
0 replies
15h27m

I completely agree with your point, if it is that ai will be twisted to generate a significant other that will essentially become addictive. I get very uncomfortable thinking about that reality.

bitzun
1 replies
16h15m

people in their teens and early 20s are being hooked en masse.

Any reference for the scale of this? It feels unlikely to me from my bubble but I only know one or two people I think would be likely to try it.

knighthack
2 replies
15h54m

There are many successful relationships that don't involve arguments - and which are about constant peace.

Relationships don't require 'arguments and fights and makeups' to be real. And if AI girlfriends offer 'ideal relationships', how is that not 'good'?

You are conflating what people actually want with the artificial drama of TV shows and Hollywood/the messy scenario of reality. If people can pay to get their fantasy girlfriends/relationships brought to life, they will, and it will be successful especially if all forms of conflict/relationship dissatisfaction can be avoided.

kiba
1 replies
14h16m

There are many successful relationships that don't involve arguments - and which are about constant peace.

I am not saying things about successful relationship. I am merely pointing out how exploitation of users can occur.

Emotional bonding often occur in orderal and other challenging events. It is one of the tools that companies will use to push users' button and to exploit them for economic value.

And if AI girlfriends offer 'ideal relationships', how is that not 'good'?

Ideal relationships aren't necessarily good for AI companies' pocketbook.

nasmorn
0 replies
12h28m

Bonding to a computer program under control of a corporation is like looking for a sociopath as a partner explicitly. You would lose complete control of your life to the other side. Reciprocity is off the table completely.

squigz
1 replies
17h24m

Nobody is going to pay for an AI girlfriend service for it to breakup with the user and refuse to get back together - because that's how growth happens in reality.

What AI girlfriends will do is mimic perfect Hollywood relationships, complete with hot makeup sex.

cruffle_duffle
0 replies
16h40m

Isn’t there a rule on the internet that says “if you can imagine it, there is porn for it” and “if there isn’t porn for it, somebody is making it”?

I’m pretty sure that applies to this scenario too. I’m 100% sure that there exists a set of customers who would pay good money to get dumped by a realistic AI girlfriend. And once dumped they’ll turn around and pay for the next AI model to dump them only in some other fashion. Maybe the AI model thinks the customers anatomy is the wrong dimensions? Maybe they smell? Maybe they are too short or tall? Perhaps the AI “girlfriend” is a triple tentacled sea monster who wants to return to oceans on Titan? Doesn’t matter. Somebody will pay very good money to experance it.

You want a hot quad breasted space babe who cheats on you with bubble wrap covered little people? Done. Want that with extra bondage? Done.

This is the internet after all. Why pay for a boring “normal” AI girlfriend when the sky is the limit? I say, use your imagination.

Dries007
7 replies
16h55m

There is no "formula" for success in the creator economy - the winners are largely random.

I think that strongly depends on what you call "the creator economy". For example, on YT it's really mostly skill: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip2trao6dYw

Not that I believe its easy, nor do I think AI will be super good at it, at least not before everything else also enshittifies into the habsburg-AI-powered dead internet.

AmericanChopper
5 replies
15h45m

The idea that success is earned through luck rather than merit is a firmly ideological position, regardless of the domain you’re talking about. If you succeeded via luck then that provides a better moral justification for the related ideological position that you should be deprived of the fruits of your labor as much as possible, for redistribution to others who were simply less lucky than you. It’s really just sour grapes.

The formula for success in any field is simply to make a product that other people want to consume. It’s not 0 variance, but if you have some insight into what people want, and you do the work to execute your idea, then you can simply work through the ups and downs and success is almost inevitable.

darby_nine
3 replies
13h20m

The formula for success in any field is simply to make a product that other people want to consume

Well, the formula for success in selling products is this. Most people don't define success in terms of business acumen.

Except, of course, businessmen. If you perceive our society as centered around successful people, of course you'll see it as merit-based. If you perceive our society as poorly run and catering to the rich, of course you'll see success as primarily a product of circumstance outside of your control. Is it so hard to see that "merit" is necessarily defined in subjective terms?

AmericanChopper
2 replies
12h19m

This is just arguing over phrasing. It doesn’t matter what you’re trying to do, if you’re making YouTube videos, or music, or paintings, or cakes, or web apps, or cleaning diveways, your ability to succeed boils down to your ability to provide something other people want. That is the objective source of your merit.

Perhaps your own idea of success in life is something that revolves exclusively around your own satisfaction, like going off and living in the woods. But this is exactly the same situation, you’re just only trying to provide the things that one person wants in that scenario, yourself. Your ability to do this will again come down to your own merit.

Of course if you’re chronically frustrated by being less successful than you would like to be, then looking for alternative explanations such as luck will be an attractive scapegoat that could excuse you from scrutinising your own capabilities. But the human inclination towards doing that is certainly not morally righteous.

SunlightEdge
1 replies
5h9m

I don't think its black and white. I think sometimes success is a matter of luck. For example, in large organizations there can be a lot of roles generated where there isn't always that much direct pressure and people can be hired through luck (e.g. getting on with the boss, some types of diversity hires, being loyal to a company even if you are not that good etc.). If teams of people make products/reports etc. sometimes it can be hard to shine, and 'talkers' who don't contribute much can get promoted into a 'lucky' role. Its not black and white.

AmericanChopper
0 replies
4h20m

You illustrate a perfect example of simply not understanding what people want. Talkers get promoted because talkers have social skills, and companies are social systems, and social skills are required to advance through them. Social skills are probably more desirable than technical skills most of the time. It’s not luck that these people succeed, it’s the fact that they have the qualities that people want.

You can succeed through partially through luck, like if a record executive decides they going to manufacture some massive level of fame for you. But this isn’t a viable long term strategy, only providing what people want is. Over time the variance of luck goes away. The luck outlook relies on the fallacious idea that you only get one opportunity to succeed, but you don’t, you have as long as you’re willing to keep trying. Maybe a failure on one particular day can be explained by luck, but you get to wake up and keep trying every day, and if you have what people want then luck becomes irrelevant and eventually you will succeed. That’s how basically every single successful person you’ve ever heard of has done it.

somenameforme
0 replies
10h28m

One of the few domains where this is testable has also demonstrated this. Writing is about as hard to break into as anything, yet Stephen King demonstrated success writing under a completely unknown alias. [1]

No he didn't immediately received the same level of reception and success as Stephen King does, but neither did Stephen King at first! That's why it's skill + dedication. If you look at some of the old videos of people who have succeeded in e.g. social media, they tend to have terrible production quality yet still significantly stand out from the crowd, even their early days. For instance this [2] is one of the first videos Vertasium ever uploaded, 13 years old now! That video, even now still 'only' has 230k views, and certainly had a tiny fraction of that when it was initially released - but he kept at it, clearly putting way more into his videos than he was getting out of them - until that trend reversed.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Bachman

[2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBjZz0iQrzI

latexr
0 replies
4h57m

For example, on YT it's really mostly skill

I watched that video from start to finish and disagree with your conclusion. I watched it all so I could make an informed comment but regret spending those 15 minutes on it.

The author essentially made a video about a popular streamer, then went on their stream and baited them with 50$ and a video about themselves. It was literally click bait. It was so transparent that the streamer realised at the end what had happened but still decided to go along with it since it cost them nothing.

That’s just directed spam (which, by the way, is a word the author used themselves). It was one video about drivel. Granted, it’s not dissimilar from the other garbage that populates YouTube, but it also didn’t get views for being good. It’s the equivalent of video junk food. You know it, the creator knows it, yet it’s still hard to stop consuming.

bostik
6 replies
13h15m

There is no "formula" for success in the creator economy - the winners are largely random.

That observation has echoes of the music industry - another extremely top-heavy creator business. There are formulaic ways to make "good enough" and "catchy enough" songs, but the window for "X enough" keeps shifting. Cranking out grunge won't be sustainable in the age of K-pop.

But the massive runaway hits have been predominantly outliers for their age. They have veered far enough from the mainstream to be interesting in new ways, different enough, and surprising enough to break through.

But to predict in advance what kinds of outliers will win the lottery? Largely random, indeed.

renewiltord
4 replies
12h55m

Yeah but Rick Rubin is always involved and Max Martin has written a hell of a lot of megahits. Makes you think.

71bw
2 replies
12h8m

Rick Rubin

Dear God, I've looked into his discography[1] and nearly every album I think of as great from the last 30 years is there. Seasons in the Abyss, The Life of Pablo, 99 Problems, SOAD self-titled + Toxicity, The Geto Boys self-titled, Licensed to Ill... Is this man a hit printer or something? Really shows that Metallica went to him with Death Magnetic after the joke called St. Anger lol

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Rubin_production_discogra...

sirspacey
0 replies
5h5m

His skill is helping creators do their best work. It’s a rare one.

renewiltord
0 replies
3h55m

There's a great interview he's got with Anderson Cooper. A fantastic line from it is "I have no technical ability whatsoever". What a guy. Seemed quite likeable.

dumbo-octopus
0 replies
12h31m

Jack Antonoff as well. There certainly exist a handful of people who consistently produce hits for decades.

TeMPOraL
0 replies
12h42m

That's arguably all entertainment. Fiction writing, art, music, movies, sports, vloggers, influencers, OnlyFans creators, etc. There's a couple brands so established that literally anything they do prints money, then there's a winner-takes-all dynamics that keeps making few randos briefly successful every season, and then there's everyone else who never makes enough to break even.

ghaff
0 replies
18h9m

From another angle, a bunch of us in the tech sector made pretty nice salaries. Very few of us were really all-stars in the sense that everyone knew who we we were on YouTube, etc. Which was fine.

llm_trw
5 replies
10h49m

When (AI is) mentioned it has a negative correlation.

I have an llm inference rig that I enjoy on the weekends and the problem for the first time in my life is that I have supernormal stimulus which doesn't seem to reduce in potency the more I use it.

It's gotten to the point where I don't visit porn sites any more because the locally generated material is better than what I can find there, and these are just the first sparks of gen AI porn.

Gen AI porn will make the issue of online pornography seem laughable when it drops in requirements so you can run the state of the art models in prosumer hardware.

What do you do when reality is a distant second to the digital world?

chasontherobot
2 replies
10h46m

I have an llm inference rig that I enjoy on the weekends and the problem for the first time in my life it that I have supernormal stimulus which doesn't seem to reduce in potency the more I use it.

I have no idea what this sentence means

k33jf33l2
0 replies
9h37m

He's jerking off to the output of a stats library and can't help wondering if/when it'll lose its luster.

jpsouth
0 replies
9h31m

I read it as they have a powerful enough machine to generate weekend material that doesn’t seem to degrade in user experience or satisfaction (i.e get boring over time) which you may experience when enjoying ‘normal’ weekend activities.

sulandor
0 replies
7h56m

What do you do when reality is a distant second to the digital world?

realize it's a torus and wander happily in circles

akomtu
0 replies
1h22m

That's what going to turn our society upside down before we realise what we're dealing with. Sex is a lot like doing drugs that as a side effect make you release your life energy. The same energy that creates new life in the right circumstances. In the nature, obtaining sex is difficult, which limits the amount of this sex drug we can consume. AI removes this "obstacle" from our way and opens the gates to such dungeons of our mind that we thought never existed. The effect at the society level will be a giant short-circuit when the electric energy that makes our bodies alive will rush down and burn the wires.

safety1st
3 replies
15h23m

There are a few key points to understanding the OnlyFans business which are not covered by either article (and the one on xsrus.com is pretty old and is off by several billions regarding revenue now).

* Point #1, OnlyFans is the biggest thing in porn by far, its rise is meteoric.

* Point #2, OnlyFans is in the business of selling relationships. It's not a tech company and attempts to analyze it as such are therefore off the mark. Customers pay OnlyFans because they feel they are obtaining a relationship with the model, that she is aware of them and responding to them in a personalized fashion.

* Point #3, The relationships OnlyFans sells are fraudulent - a high percentage of customers actually believe they are talking to the model. In reality none of the models who are successful have time to talk to fans, everything is outsourced. Some models run their own accounts but most of the time it is more professionalized with a pimp/production company behind the scenes who just orders pictures and clips from the model, so the intimacy the customer is buying is a lie.

* Point #4, and this may be the biggest one explaining OF's meteoric rise, OF creators are allowed to advertise via their social media profiles, whereas a conventional porn site is not. Reddit, X and Instagram are all massive drivers of OnlyFans traffic and signups. The business model is that softcore porn is hosted on these social media sites, which makes tons of money for the social media sites, and then there is a link or mention to the OnlyFans profile where OF delivers the service for whales who want to escalate their porn consumption.

I'll say it again, the key innovation in the OnlyFans business model is that they figured out how to get women to advertise their service on Instagram. Not a tech company.

Another significant takeaway is that since OF's product is fundamentally a lie, the social media giants are indirectly profiting from fraud.

williamdclt
1 replies
13h12m

In reality none of the models who are successful have time to talk to fans, everything is outsourced

It depends how you define “successful”, but I would say that’s not true. I personally know several OF models for whom it is their fulltime job (earning decent money), and they do not outsource anything. Highly popular models almost certainly do, but there’s a lot of smaller creators who don’t

sulandor
0 replies
8h15m

for now, but chat will be llm-fied before the content is created by an ai, that's for sure.

michaelt
0 replies
7h43m

> Point #2, OnlyFans is in the business of selling relationships [...] Customers pay OnlyFans because they feel they are obtaining a relationship with the model,

Is there any hard evidence this is true beyond a tiny deluded fraction of the userbase?

Aren't 99% of users just straightforwardly transactional, trading money for access to photos and videos, just like subscribing to a newspaper?

spencerchubb
0 replies
6h59m

Just don't tell the consumer that it's Gen AI

sigmar
0 replies
17h26m

To what extent is the current content being paid for on onlyfans "real content?" There are companies that you can pay to manage your onlyfans messages[1]. As in- people think they are messaging the content creator, but are actually messaging some random employee of a third party company. I'm not sure how many of the people paying to message the content creator understand that this is common, but I'd imagine some are willfully ignorant about who is replying to their messages. Couldn't they also be similarly "blind" when interfacing with an AI substitute?

[1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/onlyfans-management-agency-c...

ec109685
0 replies
4h0m

It’s already fake. The creator is not really into you and your interactions are with some dude in an offshore call center, not intimate chats with the person you think you’re having. It’s ridiculous this is considered okay by the platform.

Unlike something like professional wrestling (that is make believe real content), the AI equivalent to only fans seems like it will be trivial to make.

And as the article pointed out, part of why onlyfans exploded in popularity is that other sources of free porn dried up, so it shows there is a substitution aspect where if something better / cheaper comes along, people will switch to it.

creer
0 replies
17h20m

Further, different audiences are looking for different things.

One other response mentions social status.

I will contribute another: personal human interaction with someone that seems both "out of your league" AND "no-need-to-get-away-from-the-computer" available. That configuration has significant value (as real content from a real human) for enough of these fans, enough of which recognize this and pay well for it - to make it worth the performer's time. And still very far from "generative AI".

beAbU
0 replies
12h21m

Sure, real content will fetch a premium, but I think there is absolute bank to be made with AI enhanced or AI generated curated pornography in our near future.

I will also not be surprised at all when the inevitable scandal breaks where some popular OF creator was ousted as being AI generated instead of being "real".

There are Instagram influences that are on the platform /today/ that are immensely popular, and they are completely AI generated. Some of their followers even know this, yet they don't really care.

3eb7988a1663
0 replies
14h50m

This was a minor point in the Diamond Age novel. Artificial intelligence is capable of acting in digital movies, but is still imperceptibly off. Requires a real human being to give that extra bit of authenticity.

CSMastermind
22 replies
17h32m

I have a buddy how likes to tell how he "had the idea for Onlyfans first" but I advised him not to pursue it.

The reality is that OnlyFans wasn't the first to try this model. You have to give them credit for successfully building the business, especially with several close calls between them and government regulations.

doix
11 replies
17h26m

Yeah, I'm sure millions of people had this idea. My friends and I talked about it at some point as well.

The problem is the payment processor. How the heck do you accept adult-content related payments? That is the hardest problem to solve when it comes to these things in my book.

mattfrommars
6 replies
17h14m

Payment is the hardest part in this space. Somehow OnlyFans had the privilege to use Stripe for all their transactions.

It's beyond knowing the business model, I guess the founder were at the right place and right time and knew the right people to make this venture succeed.

Also, the marketing, how the heck did these guy blow up so fast. The funds for marketing and all, it's not cheap!

roenxi
3 replies
16h55m

If someone has a serious pitch to the tune of "I've got enough leverage with key players in Stripe to make an adult site work", everything afterwards would get pretty easy. Finding money to advertise is no problem, these sites are in a great position if they can work around the payment systems. The difficulty becomes the moat.

duggan
2 replies
10h5m

As far as I understand it isn't Stripe setting policy on this, it's Mastercard/Visa. Though presumably, ultimately, it's really government.

avianlyric
1 replies
8h52m

It’s a bit of a mix. Mastercard/Visa do set some policies around this, but only due to, quite frankly undemocratic, political pressure. There been a few documented cases of particularly puritanical US politicians sending letters and making arbitrary public claims to “embarrass” Mastercard/Visa into restricting certain types of perfectly legal commerce. The impact of these policies is a bit arbitrary, as Mastercard/Visa generally aren’t in the business of restricting commerce (and thus their cut of the profits). So they tend to have short lived, but high impact, consequences on specific individuals or groups.

Really though, the primary reason why a company like stripe don’t want to be involved with these types of business, is the very high levels of fraud and chargebacks that come with the territory. Turns out people get embarrassed about porn appearing on their bank statements, and often put in dubious chargeback claims. Not to mention many banks have their fraud controls set to a hair-trigger for anything porn related.

The end result is processing these transactions is normally very expensive and high risk, due to the fraud and chargebacks. Which in turn put you at high risk of being kicked of the Mastercard/Visa networks. Mastercard/Visa mostly don’t give a shit what you’re selling, as long as you pay your dues. But they do get very upset when it looks like your business might threaten the perceived safety of credit/debit cards. As usual, protecting profits is treated much more seriously, than preventing any perceived moral failing.

As for governments, they officially don’t care. Selling porn is perfectly legal in the western world, so it only individuals in government who choose to abuse their positions to enforce their personal moral code on others (beyond what the law requires) that creates any kind of government “policy”.

fakedang
0 replies
6h35m

Mastercard/Visa do set some policies around this, but only due to, quite frankly undemocratic, political pressure. There been a few documented cases of particularly puritanical US politicians sending letters and making arbitrary public claims to “embarrass” Mastercard/Visa into restricting certain types of perfectly legal commerce.

Not much political pressure as much as online smear campaigning by Bill Ackman. And for good reason. The platforms then went overboard and swung the pendulum hard.

hn_throwaway_99
1 replies
14h48m

Somehow OnlyFans had the privilege to use Stripe for all their transactions.

Is this accurate? Because (a) Stripe explicitly says they won't be a payment processor for adult-oriented businesses, and (b) I read somewhere (this was a while back) that OnlyFans had a slew of payment processors that they would rotate/diversify whenever things got too dicey with a specific processor (e.g. too many chargebacks)

rrr_oh_man
0 replies
9h5m

Yes.

It's like international law:

There are fixed rules, until there aren't.

creer
1 replies
17h17m

Second is the issue of promotion: how to you become known to enough fans to make it worth it. The sites offer a true service of discovery.

lotsofpulp
0 replies
7h41m

Seemingly, it is posting a variety of content on Reddit that incentivized people to click on usernames which then advertise the OF.

qingcharles
0 replies
15h21m

OnlyFans banned adult content at one point:

https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/24/22639356/onlyfans-ceo-tim...

Recently they've tried to launch OFTV to try and build up more regular (non-spicy) paid content, but it's a tiny fraction of their revenue I would imagine.

paulpauper
0 replies
17h14m

Payment processing for porn has existed a long time. The problem is trying to convince people to pay for porn. The assumption was free tube site would replace membership sites, as the was the trend already.

joenot443
1 replies
5h44m

Highly recommend this thread. I think these kind of honest post-mortems from founders are super valuable and Cyan's delivery is frank and charitable.

It seems she and Justin Mares are running some kind of micro-funding for passionate <25yos. $2k to help young people develop themselves; super cool.

https://www.inflectiongrants.com/

luuurker
0 replies
5h6m

Highly recommend this thread.

Shame that Twitter doesn't let people without an account to read it.

marcellus23
0 replies
3h37m

Wow some of those tweets are long. Twitter lost something when it removed the character limit.

paulpauper
3 replies
17h21m

It was covid

Otherwise, paid porn was already on the downswing due to the rise of free tube sites. Onlyfans somehow got men paying for porn again.

debacle
1 replies
15h31m

Onlyfans is more than porn. DMs with your "star" (her assistant), exclusive content, and other parasocial interactions create a kind of connection that is a lot deeper than just porn.

When you can combine that experience with AI generated content, you will create something that I don't think anyone fully understands the ramifications of yet.

knallfrosch
0 replies
12h31m

Even "assistant" (singular) is misleading. It's 30 men in the Philippines mashed together with AI-bots.

darth_avocado
0 replies
14h15m

It was 100% covid.

The strip clubs were closed, the strippers and the patrons moved to the online strip club.

paxys
17 replies
6h42m

The company counted an average of only 42 employees in 2023, down from 61 two years earlier. During the year, it generated $31MM in net revenue per employee (13-28x that of Amazon, Apple, Google, and Microsoft) and $15.5MM in operating profit (27-560x).

This is the wildest part. One company that is proving all the "why does <company> need 10000 engineers?" takes true.

michaelt
2 replies
3h49m

Revenue per employee isn't a useful metric here IMHO.

If Company A sells $100M of televisions which they imported for $95M they've made $5M in profit.

If Company B sells $100M of search ads which they served for $1M they've made $99M in profit.

From a revenue perspective they're equal - but $1M invested in Company A produces a 5% return on investment, while the same $1M invested in Company B has a 9900% ROI.

finnh
1 replies
3h46m

The quoted section is about net revenue, which in this article means total revenue minus the payouts to creators. In other worse, revenue minus COGS. It's a valid comparison.

michaelt
0 replies
2h29m

Ah, you're right. I confused the quoted section with the second paragraph and first two charts of the article, which are throwing around billions and comparing to the NBA based on gross revenue.

blackhawkC17
2 replies
6h35m

They employ hundreds of contractors to run the operations.

preciousoo
0 replies
3h42m

It could be compliance/moderation efforts, this is not specified

jandrese
0 replies
2h5m

If that's true then the statement is basically an accounting lie.

PUSH_AX
2 replies
6h39m

It's easy to say this without knowing what is suffering as a result.

paxys
1 replies
6h31m

What is suffering as a result?

cruffle_duffle
0 replies
4h38m

The all important 99.99% uptime with a P99.9 request latency of 10ms globally? As you know, porn sites have a strict SLA that not even AWS has to meet.

…but as others pointed out there I’m sure there is an army of contractors that don’t factor into any headcount figure. Which doesn’t at all subtract from the insane revenue per employee figure.

makeitdouble
1 replies
3h31m

My gut feeling is this number doesn't match our assumptions.

For instance moderation and community management alone must be a huge pool of people. While the content and comments can be adult, they'll need to deal with all the payment related back and forth, including chargebacks, legal inquiries etc. Same for doxxing, underage filtering, spam and so on.

I assume most if not all of it is a different company which isn't counted in the 42 employees.

Of course engineering can be treated the same, with sub-contracting companies dealing with the actual running of the service or part of the developement.

QuercusMax
0 replies
23m

...and of course, the actual content isn't being created by employees.

almatabata
1 replies
6h28m

It does not. These companies do not even work in the same problem space. Amazon works in retail, cloud, book publishing, etc. Microsoft maintains their own cloud as well and a complete operating system.

At least compare it to companies with similar businesses. I would argue twitch seems closer. I think they had over 1000 employees. You would have a better point with that comparison if you would want to make that argument.

ghaff
0 replies
6h22m

I'm going to say more or less the same thing in a different way. As you scale up to do more and different things, your efficiency at some level is going to go down. Maybe way down.

xyst
0 replies
4h55m

OF revolves around a single product

AWS/GCP/Azure manage physical data centers across the globe, and includes hundreds of services/offerings on each platform.

Additionally, critical industries (hospitals, banks, airlines) often rely on these companies to be available/resilient at all times. Thus the need for increased global workforce. OF on the other hand, nobody is going to die if they can’t access the feet pics they bought for a few minutes or days.

You are not comparing the same companies.

strken
0 replies
4h17m

This is the wildest part. One company that is proving all the "why does <company> need 10000 engineers?" takes true.

Generally speaking, <company> needs <number> engineers because it's rational to keep hiring while each incremental engineer generates more value than they cost in salary and overhead, even if some of those engineers are at less than 50% utilisation and have to generate pointless make-work for themselves to get past performance review.

jandrese
0 replies
2h6m

Where labor costs really start to skyrocket is when you start trying to moderate content and keep the porn bots from invading your site. OF probably spends little in doing this. It is remarkable that they've been able to keep their payment processors happy despite the distinct possibility that a number of the performers are underage and a huge legal liability. Clearly with a staff that small they aren't doing the most extensive background checks.

AzzyHN
0 replies
37m

OF makes one product, and that product is maintaining a particular platform, that's why they don't need tons of engineers. They've just got to be a more attractive platform than their competition, and the money keeps coming in.

listless
16 replies
14h13m

Is anyone willing to admit they subscribe to an OF and explain why over the free pornography alternatives that most of the internet is full of?

GaryNumanVevo
7 replies
8h35m

None of these commenters actually use OnlyFans, because there's literally a free tier option to subscribe. You still need a credit card to sign up because they obviously want to reduce the friction for subscribing or paying for extra content. I've seen a lot of models that will use Twitter > Free OF > Paid OF funnel. Twitter is mostly soft-core / flirty, Free OF has some nudity, typically no videos, and the Paid OF is where most of explicit content is.

Revenue wise, you'll make a lot more money tailoring content to a small group of users who will pay for custom content / live cams etc than having any mass appeal with small donations. The large social media funnel is mostly there to get model's content out there to find the whales.

Context: I have a side business deploying chat LLMs for OnlyFans models for fans to "talk" to that's currently at 65k/MRR. It definitely helps with user retention, as models who chat to their fans will have a 2x or 3x spend rate per fan.

greenie_beans
2 replies
7h20m

Context: I have a side business deploying chat LLMs for OnlyFans models for fans to "talk" to that's currently at 65k/MRR.

good job

GaryNumanVevo
1 replies
6h42m

This is hackernews after all!

greenie_beans
0 replies
3h55m

would be hilarious if you were THE gary numan. why tf you making SaaS income? i would not be anywhere near tech if my art was successful.

zephyrfalcon
1 replies
5h47m

Context: I have a side business deploying chat LLMs for OnlyFans models for fans to "talk" to

Seems illegal, or at the very least a violation of OF's Terms of Service.

GaryNumanVevo
0 replies
4h14m

Their ToS doesn't apply to off site content

licnep
1 replies
6h23m

Context: I have a side business deploying chat LLMs for OnlyFans models for fans to "talk" to

How did you market this? Do you have a website for it?

GaryNumanVevo
0 replies
6h16m

No website or advertising. All word of mouth / cold emailing.

yieldcrv
0 replies
3h21m

Four years after the pandemic and people still pretend not to know that onlyfans is often free? Its such a tired trope to debate, but there is the possibility you’re serious

The article itself explains how subscriptions are a low part of OnlyFans business

But maybe this is only offering a glimpse

Many successful creators have a marketing strategy that includes a free subscription tier, and make money in pay per view DMs, or charging for DMs at all

So for people browsing for free pornography, its the same or better

Either way, its nice to see your attractive friends naked. Many women you meet in real life have a link in their social media bio that includes their onlyfans. In my world its very predictable based on visual attractiveness. Astoundingly, often it seems other women in their friend groups don’t know this and haven’t checked the “link in bio” of their girl friends. This masquerades as acceptance of sex workers.

standardUser
0 replies
38m

I have subscribed on and off to many different OF accounts. I usually just want to check out their spicy content, not chat or form a connection of any kind. But I have chatted with and formed connections with people on webcam streaming sites. I've also performed on streaming sites and met many awesome people through those interactions (and earned a tiny amount of money).

The OF content I pay for is usually from someone I discovered via Instagram or a camming site.

But the money I spend on camming sites is usually because it offers two things that aren't easily found elsewhere. 1) direct interaction with the models in real time and 2) seeing couples who are actually couples and have a real and pre-existing relationship. Part 2 is a tiny amount of camming content, but it is some of my all time favorite sex content.

logicchains
0 replies
13h25m

Some of the OF models are more physically attractive than most of the actors in free pornography. There's lots of free pornography on the internet but very little of it contains 9s and 10s.

kowbell
0 replies
2h28m

I have subscribed. I have paid for PPV.

Why? I have disposable income and I feel good when I spend it supporting creators I like. I subscribe to several Patreons of artists and YouTube creators, I’ve got that yearly Nebula subscription locked in, I buy merch and CDs from local bands (even though I don’t really listen to them after shows), and I also will pay folks posting tantalizing stuff on the internet. Sure I can get similar things for free, but sometimes I want content from that person and I see no issue giving them a couple bucks for it. I can afford it, so why not? Why do they not deserve it when I’m willing to also sub to a Patreon for someone who makes cool digital art on Instagram?

The “para-social” aspect is icky to me. At no point do I expect that this person knows who I am or has any care for me; any time I receive messages insinuating or fishing for that I ignore them. My “relationship” to them is a consumer who enjoys their work and is willing to compensate them for it, and that “relationship” only exists for a limited amount of time every so often.

flwi
0 replies
10h18m

I think it is the general attractiveness of para social relationships (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasocial_interaction). People look for personal, intimate interactions. OF creates (the illusion of) such relationships.

conductr
0 replies
14h1m

My proverbial homies that use it say it's because they get private show or host will watch via a 2-way video. It's basically peep shows and phone sex meets FaceTime. Stuff like this is why the growing part of their business is "One-off Transactions". It should be called "Jerk-off Transactions" because that's how it's being used.

colechristensen
0 replies
13h59m

I have known people who have been content creators on OF or similar. The whole industry is pretty abusive and exploitative, but on platforms like OF you can be more (certainly not entirely, but more) sure that the creator isn't being exploited and is the one benefitting from the work. A big part of it is also the creator interacting with the fans up to creating custom content for individuals.

TheCapeGreek
0 replies
13h54m

I would liken it as "digital sexual companionship" in many cases, rather than just porn. That's the value here, for a lot of the same reasons that people would engage with a "traditional" prostitute/escort. It's just cheaper (at first), and less likely to get you arrested or put in dangerous areas.

The article makes mention of AI content potentially coming for this industry, but I believe it's the "GirlfriendGPT" and similar that will be the bigger threat, once they improve.

kylehotchkiss
16 replies
16h51m

I find myself a little sad at how lucrative a job this will appear for an entire generation. $1500 average creator pay is higher than 40 hours a week minimum wage.

evantbyrne
7 replies
15h32m

Who do you know that's making $9/hour avg today? That's what I was earning at a student job back in 2010.

paxys
5 replies
6h36m

Federal minimum wage is largely an irrelevant number. <1% of hourly workers in the country are making minimum wage. And most of those are making below minimum wage (under the table), so their wage would remain low even if the government raised the number.

IncreasePosts
3 replies
2h33m

Why should there be a national minimum wage? Cost of living varies so much, it is impossible to derive a figure that is reasonable for the highest cost of living areas and the lowest cost of living areas.

bigstrat2003
1 replies
54m

Not only is it basically impossible to do a national minimum wage fairly, it is completely antithetical to our system of government. We are a federation of states, not a centralized national government that runs everything else. I wish people would stop trying to make the US something it isn't and was never meant to be.

BizarroLand
0 replies
8m

The states have a lot of leeway in how they run things, the federal government is there to make sure the system stays in some sort of accord.

They do this by offering emergency relief funds for natural disasters, interstate highways for trade and economy, and all manner of things.

I think a federal minimum wage makes sense in this system, ensuring that the people of Tishomingo, Mississippi have the same fundamental buying power as the people to Los Angeles, California instead of them earning $1 an hour because it's comparatively cheaper to live in Tishomingo.

Raising the federal minimum wage is also a good way to decrease old debt, deflate the value of stagnant money (increasing the likelihood that the money moves, improving the economy) and to temporarily boost the financial status of the poorest and most disaffected.

In an age where no one working minimum wage can afford the cheapest 1 bedroom apartment without an extraordinary stroke of luck or some sort of financial dispensation, someone needs to do something and it needs to come from on high.

OkayPhysicist
0 replies
2h0m

Because there are a number of states that have repeatedly demonstrated that they can't be trusted to make basic, life-improving changes for themselves. Then respectable places like California end up footing the bill when they shake the proverbial can.

A fair number of these states had to be held at gunpoint to eliminate slavery.

MostlyStable
3 replies
16h48m

That's $1500 annually for the average creator, and due to concentration at the top, the median take home is going to be even lower than that.

tazu
0 replies
16h43m

Yes, it's misleading to share averages for power-law distributions. Median take home pay is probably $20 annually.

kylehotchkiss
0 replies
16h23m

Doh! I read that as monthly. My bad.

animal531
0 replies
5h45m

The thing that should be really worrying for new OF creators should be how that value is dropping per year.

It (along with the growing revenue) tells us that a lot more people are joining constantly, so you will really need to stand out to make anything (just as in music, games etc.)

Barrin92
1 replies
16h11m

I don't. People get to take home 80% of what they make, have full control over their work and it eliminates the biggest drawback of sex work which is safety issues. The day when enough people have a way to opt out of grueling min wage work is probably when it's finally automated or at least people get treated better.

williamdclt
0 replies
13h5m

it eliminates the biggest drawback of sex work which is safety issues

It certainly reduces it a lot and your point is valid, but let’s note that it doesn’t “eliminate” it: doxxing and stalking are very much a thing and my OF creator friends live in flatshare or have building security for safety reasons

eleveriven
0 replies
10h19m

I think it's also the question about how this type of work is viewed in society

dragonwriter
0 replies
16h21m

$1500 average creator pay is higher than 40 hours a week minimum wage.

Only in jurisdictions where minimum wage is less than $0.72/hr.

rrr_oh_man
8 replies
9h8m

It's really interesting to read the comments here — I would not have expected this type of moralistic attitude from such a large share of commenters.

paganel
7 replies
8h36m

It's good to have morals.

paxys
4 replies
6h41m

Morals like "don't harm others" and "be nice", sure. "A woman should be modest and keep her body covered"...not really.

paganel
3 replies
5h15m

That's your opinion, and this wasn't about a woman wearing a dress or not, it was about women selling their sex to men in exchange for money, because this is what this is (even though the sex is virtual, it's still sex).

So, yes, it is important to have morals in situations like this one and see companies like OnlyFans for what they truly are, i.e. SV-funded pimp organisations.

standardUser
2 replies
4h34m

What precisely is wrong with consensually selling sex?

paganel
1 replies
3h38m

There is really no “consensual” part in there.

standardUser
0 replies
2h48m

I've done sex work. You tell me how what I did was not consensual. Explain it in detail. No need to be so coy or shy. After all, you're reading about and commenting on an article about porn.

rrr_oh_man
0 replies
5h32m

What's yours?

d_burfoot
7 replies
5h22m

The widespread impact of the OF economy is obvious to many gym-goers. At my local gym you can see the usual assortment of bodybuilding guys (same as it's been for decades), and then you can see 2-3 girls who are clearly trying to make it into the top 0.1% of hotness so they can cash in on OF (or maybe Instagram). This latter group is a recent phenomenon.

malfist
4 replies
5h20m

Why do you assume women in gyms are trying to make money on OnlyFans?

ronsor
3 replies
5h10m

There is a new-ish phenomenon of some women going to the gym, setting up suspiciously placed cameras, and then uploading to TikTok (or Instagram or OF) with complaints that the people in the background - who do not want to be recorded - are "staring."

It is usually obvious what they're doing. It's not merely "there are women in the gym."

cruffle_duffle
1 replies
4h36m

I’m sure that is a trend that came and went though. You can only manufacture so much of the same rage bait before it loses its potency. I’m sure this group of people moved into suspiciously placed cameras in the produce isle or maybe gas station or something.

jeffhuys
0 replies
3h18m

You’re sure… well… not sure enough I guess. It still happens a lot, at least where I go

IncreasePosts
0 replies
2h37m

Sure, but that doesn't inform you of what percent of women in the gym filming themselves are doing it for rage bait.

Some might just want to check out their form. Or upload an inspirational workout video.

codingdave
0 replies
2h25m

I'm not sure what gyms you frequent, but I've always seen more women in the gym than men, and we're talking since the 80s. Women in gyms is not the slightest bit a new thing.

Mashimo
0 replies
1h31m

Wat?

I know girls who go the the gym. They work in IT and are not OF girls. They just want to stay healthy. People also don't smoke any more as much, and gen z drinks less alcohol then the other generations.

throw7
6 replies
17h57m

2/3 of its revenues were from the U.S. That's... sad.

dragonwriter
3 replies
17h40m

2/3 of its revenues were from the U.S. That's... sad.

Probably common for a lot of luxury products; US is like 1/4 of world GDP, and a lot higher than that in personal income beyond basic needs.

jimmygrapes
1 replies
17h16m

But still around 4 to 5% of the global population. Every stat in the global context of usage/consumerism gets weird when you consider this, and even weirder when you account for debt-to-income ratio.

dragonwriter
0 replies
16h28m

But still around 4 to 5% of the global population.

Yeah, but so? "Subsisitence farmers in sub-Saharan Africa spend substantially less per capita on online adult entertainment than Americans" is...not a surprising bit of information.

Every stat in the global context of usage/consumerism gets weird when you consider this

Seems to me that the weird thing is the implicit premise that consumer and especially luxury spending should be expected to track population and not wealth.

and even weirder when you account for debt-to-income ratio.

Are you assuming that the ability to borrow should be negatively correlated with luxury spending?

1oooqooq
0 replies
17h11m

Tiktok ban mentions of WeChat just like they been saying onlyfans.

yen223
0 replies
17h38m

This just means a) the US is a huge market, and b) they haven't cracked the China market yet

xyst
0 replies
17h52m

I wonder how much of that is from a group of lonely whales.

dachworker
6 replies
9h56m

Being a digital pimp is just as morally disgusting as being an irl pimp.

GaryNumanVevo
3 replies
8h31m

This is the free market, check your moral reservations at the door.

arandomusername
2 replies
4h36m

So you would have no reservations about a business selling class A drugs to kids? Free market after all.

itsoktocry
0 replies
4h12m

Yes, selling drugs to kids and being a "content creator" on OnlyFans are the same thing.

GaryNumanVevo
0 replies
4h6m

No, not particularly. Society should raise it's children to know better.

standardUser
0 replies
4h35m

Which is to say, not disgusting at all.

WhompingWindows
0 replies
4h50m

Let's investigate that claim. Does OF physically and emotionally abuse its creators? Does it perpetuate human trafficking? Does OF create drug addiction and use that to control its creators? Does OF force its creators to have sexual contact with potentially violent or diseased/depraved individuals?

Ask yourself, would you prefer your family members to be under an IRL pimp or run their own OF?

If you look at this realistically, OF is not nearly as morally reprehensible as an IRL pimp.

luizfzs
5 replies
3h58m

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!

foobarian
1 replies
2h46m

Wait until we need to talk about billions!

quectophoton
0 replies
2h37m

How to forget one of the holy wars of natural languages, with half the world using it to mean "one million million", and the other half using it to mean "one thousand million".

Still less confusing than "mph" (I always read it as "meters per hour" and have to go back to correct myself).

CryptoBanker
1 replies
1h22m

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.

luizfzs
0 replies
1h8m

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.

quectophoton
0 replies
2h31m

It's so easy to stick to international units, folks.

It's not as easy as you might think, given how many places I've seen that measure weight in Kelvin-grams (Kg).

rybosworld
4 replies
4h23m

It does seem like the business preys on, primarily teenage boys, in a way that traditional pornography does not.

If you look up the user demographics, you'll notice an obvious problem: The demographics do not include the number of users under 18.

https://techreport.com/statistics/software-web/onlyfans-stat...

Some may say: well that's because you have to be 18 to use the site. But that's not true. Anyone can signup for onlyfans without entering their age. Onlyfans only does age verification for creators.

If you think this site isn't primarily being used by teenagers, then I have a bridge to sell you.

neilv
1 replies
3h45m

Interesting. I wouldn't have guessed teens would have the money. I'd have guessed the cash cows would be adult, well-employed.

But if it's a common scenario for an adult OF creator to be sexually interacting with an underage teenager online (and, really, "grooming" them), are we going to start seeing life-ruining prosecutions of creators?

Incidentally including subpoenas of lists of creators and consumers, for additional chilling effect on both?

If so, could that kill OF's business, at least for Western creators, as well as for some consumers?

And if OF ends up with creators mostly in non-Western countries, with a reputation for preying upon UK/US/etc. teens (and maybe even reports of human trafficking, and/or funding sanctioned parties), will OF be banned in many Western countries? Maybe the most lucrative ones?

Separate from serious questions about what's ethical and healthy for everyone, given that the topic is OF's economics, I wonder whether they're making so much money because they're too close to the line of what's legally sustainable.

rybosworld
0 replies
3h33m

Teens will always find a way to spend money, with or without their parents knowing. I can remember when it was possible to rent adult videos on HBO. It would charge to your parents credit card but that only matters if they check their bill and many people do not.

I wouldn't venture to say what percentage of the income is coming from users are the under age of 18, beyond that is certainly a number larger than $0.

But if it's a common scenario for an adult OF creator to be sexually interacting with an underage teenager online (and, really, "grooming" them), are we going to start seeing life-ruining prosecutions of creators?

This more or less happens on twitch.tv with alarming frequency. The hot tub streams are not much different than soft core imo. And users will get shoutouts and prizes (in the form of writing the users name on the streamers body) for sending money. It's all done in a way that's nearly impossible to attribute wrong doing to creators, though.

itsoktocry
1 replies
4h19m

preys on

What do you mean by "preys on"? Teenage boys seek out porn, is normal. There's nothing magical about this type of porn. If they are breaking the ToS and committing credit card fraud, who's at fault?

rybosworld
0 replies
4h7m

The preying on part, is imo, the para-social relationships that creators form with users.

Society figured out a long time ago that teenagers are susceptible to being taken advantage of by adults. It's why every modern nation has age of consent laws.

But onlyfans circumvents that. Creators interact with users, and the users, mostly teenagers, can interact back. This happens on twitch as well, and twitch is used as a funnel for onlyfans.

I think it's hard to argue that there isn't a fundamental difference between:

- watching recorded porn

- a social media platform that allows pornstars to chat with and perform private shows for users, who have a high chance of being under 18

nemo44x
4 replies
16h43m

This is why PornHub was sold to bag holders earlier seemingly out of nowhere. Their business is dead.

Second point - is this really Europe’s most successful tech company of the last 15 years?!

paxys
1 replies
6h38m

UK != Europe

lucb1e
0 replies
3h35m

Or at least, don't tell them

knallfrosch
0 replies
12h24m

The article limits the claim to a "probably" and "UK"

it is probably the most successful UK company founded since DeepMind in 2010
Peroni
0 replies
8h25m

$6.3 billion in gross revenues

Not sure I can name many US companies founded in the last 15 years with higher revenue numbers

ldjkfkdsjnv
4 replies
18h16m

OnlyFans is run by a very small tight knit group of people. A while back, I sat at a poker table in vegas with one for 5 hours. We discussed technology and the future of OF. I was offered a job to run a technology team there - often think I made a mistake not taking it.

brandnewideas
1 replies
10h49m

You probably did. Pornography plays an important role in shaping and controlling today's societies and the powers that be will certainly push its distributors and creators more and more in the future.

Fluorescence
0 replies
7h27m

important role in shaping and controlling today's societies

In what ways?

As an industry, it seems pretty much a pariah. In terms of political power, the religious organisations that that pressure the finance system to break ties with pornography seem more powerful. Maybe it influences culture/perceptions about relationships and sex in more ways than I can see.

monero-xmr
0 replies
15h9m

I know this team also. Very tight group that came from a prior failure. Very focused and knowledgeable of legal minefields.

brcmthrowaway
0 replies
17h49m

Super interesting

I wish I was cut throat enough to know real players in internet commerce

omnee
3 replies
10h47m

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.

lucb1e
2 replies
3h37m

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

eszed
1 replies
1h9m

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.

lucb1e
0 replies
1m

There's various places where you can talk directly with the person offering their services though, that's not something OF newly introduced to the internet -- if that's what you meant by their "social interaction" since I haven't used OF so could be missing a detail

xyst
2 replies
17h53m

Wow - those AI generated influencers would be enough to fool older populations. If I was a shitty person, I would build my own network of “influencers” to manage and pump money from the lonely/desperate.

Baby steps towards the “dead internet theory”

mervz
0 replies
16h39m

Yeah, I'm sure you "would".

Loughla
0 replies
17h15m

Old people and desperate people who are inclined to believe, yes. But the glitching and weird movements are a dead giveaway, I think.

helsinkiandrew
2 replies
5h53m

These reports, which have not been independently verified, show her lifetime gross billings exceed $70 million, with Bhabie collecting $57 million. Over half of revenues were generated via paid messages with individual users (which may include custom audio-visual content).

I can see how 10's of thousands of people paying $25 a month can generate millions but $25M on private messages in a year is over $70K a day - how many is she doing or how much do they cost each?

qingcharles
0 replies
3h52m

On OF the creators use private messaging sell what is known as PPV (pay-per-view). They upsell things that aren't available with the subscription, such as more intimate videos. Often they will sell custom created content. I know one woman who charges $800 for a single custom photo.

isolli
0 replies
5h6m

From the article:

In many cases, the responses are actually written by a member of the creator’s extended team – remember, many of these creators are now multi-million dollar enterprises, and its obviously impossible for creators such as Bhad Bhabie to engage in detailed and personalized conversations with their scores of VIP subscribers – though this alleged subterfuge has resulted in some legal action.
darepublic
2 replies
5h43m

Usually, such a ban would destroy a media platforms’ business model, but browser-based experiences are fine for viewing photos and videos and sending messages (in contrast, most games can’t even run). And while apps tend to offer better user experiences and far simpler payment processes, most OnlyFans customers aren’t dissuaded by the need to use a browser, nor the extra hoops involved in manually entering a credit card number

This is a baffling section where the author goes out of their way to bash browsers vs apps. Maybe there are a lot of cons to apps that browsers don't have. Basically all of the sleights against browsers in this section are not true. When I buy something from amazon, from my browser, I definitely do not need to manually enter my credit card in every time.

prox
0 replies
3h58m

Yeah, browsers to me represent freedom against locked in/tracking of apps. I rejoice browsers every day.

eastbound
0 replies
2h58m

Browsers are multitasking, phones are slow-loading single screens at a time.

For me, iPhone feels like surfing the web with a 46kbauds modem. Single page at a time. Want to load two? IT RELOADS.

jimbob45
0 replies
1h43m

As an aside: OnlyFans 80% revenue share rate is practical only because it does not offer App Store-based billing (which would take 15-30% of revenue off the top). In fact, neither iOS App Store nor Google’s Play Store even allow for pornographic apps. Usually, such a ban would destroy a media platforms’ business model, but browser-based experiences are fine for viewing photos and videos and sending messages (in contrast, most games can’t even run). And while apps tend to offer better user experiences and far simpler payment processes, most OnlyFans customers aren’t dissuaded by the need to use a browser, nor the extra hoops involved in manually entering a credit card number (again, this is less true for casual games or ecommerce).

IMO the lede is a bit buried within the article. The idea that a non-app could survive this well within the strangling iOS system should come as a revelation to the greater iOS community.

Animats
0 replies
22m

So this is a VC writing, observing that they have a stable, profitable business model. Creators get 80% of revenue, which is pretty good. It creates a moat - nobody taking a bigger cut is likely to get the desirable talent. Most of the creators don't make much, which is normal for creative industries. Music and books work that way.

OnlyFans has only about 42 employees. They didn't hire a bloated staff. That's impressive considering the sheer volume of content that passes through their servers.

It looks like OnlyFans has figured out how to do the porno business in a more or less legit way. So what's the problem?