Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics(matthewball.co) |
Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics(matthewball.co) |
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think the odds of getting recognized were a bit lower for me being a male, my peak live viewership was a little over 1k viewers. A video of me also got reposted and featured on PornHub gay and was able to accumulate ~100k views before I was able to get it taken down. There are still plenty of videos around that I wasn't able to get taken down but the big sites like PornHub respect DMCA takedown requests.
Regarding getting recognized, I think you are somewhat right but it likely still happens. I had 2 people recognize me in person, only 1 found my real name because they recognized me at my college graduation. Nothing came of it besides them trying to add me on FaceBook. I think for girls they would be more likely to get recognized if they are successful because they get a lot more viewers.
I was lucky that nobody that did recognize me posted anywhere about what my real name is since that would be a way to find the videos of me when people search my real name. I think that is probably the biggest risk with performing is that if that association happens, it would probably be hard to wipe that association from the internet. One way out of it for women though is that they could take their spouses last name when they get married, their new name wouldn't be associated with the old porn name.
I have told people in my life about that past job. It had no impact on any of those relationships and never really came up again. So if it did come up again, I don't think it would have much impact on my life. In my mind, sex work is real work and those who do it should not be shamed for doing it.
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.
also most of the camgirls i know in real life block access to people who live in the same country as they (and i) do; that greatly reduces the chance of awkward dialogues with long-distant uncles at the next family reunion
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.
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.
I think you're just projecting.
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.
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.
It adds risk that another hire may not have.
This is why in general it is frowned upon by "certain members of society" as you call them.
Some forms are a lot more taxing on both mental and physical health (plus STD risk). OF doesn't have this same level of risk but people mentally lump it all together
The morals are there for a reason, they just lack nuance
Japan's actually got the least-worst birthrates among Far East, and everyone knows what it's best known for on the Internet.
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.
I am reminded of the study done on the damaged goods hypothesis, which gave a negative on that hypothesis. Not only did porn actresses not have higher rate of childhood sexual abuse, but they rated higher than the average in terms of self-esteem, positive feelings, and social support. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23167939/)
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.
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.
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.
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).
No, if you sell sex, lots of societies will punish you. Selling or renting your body otherwise -- which a very large share of jobs involve just as much as sex work does -- is otherwise lauded.
> Thats fine, societies have all sorts of norms we all need to learn.
Lots of norms that societies have or historically have had would be better eliminated. That something is an existing norm isn't an argument in favor of it being a norm.
That's how all labor works.
> 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
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.
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.
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.
This is the wildest part. One company that is proving all the "why does <company> need 10000 engineers?" takes true.
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?
were you replying to someone else making a comment attacking onlyfans?
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.
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?
> 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.
if you're talking to them in some kind of textual instant messenger, rather than over the phone or video chat, you can probably maintain two to four detailed and personalized conversations at a time, which would boost that number into the low thousands
you're just conversing with people, not fucking them, and there are in fact real-life prostitutes who serve scores of clients per month
still i'd probably agree if ball had said 'thousands'. but 'scores' sounds easy
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.
It is usually obvious what they're doing. It's not merely "there are women in the gym."
Baby steps towards the “dead internet theory”
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.)
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
Only in jurisdictions where minimum wage is less than $0.72/hr.
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.
I wish I was cut throat enough to know real players in internet commerce
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.
Second point - is this really Europe’s most successful tech company of the last 15 years?!
> it is probably the most successful UK company founded since DeepMind in 2010
Not sure I can name many US companies founded in the last 15 years with higher revenue numbers
It's so easy to stick to international units, folks. Please. PLEASE!
The M lives on in languages like Spanish where the word mil means one thousand.
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.
It's not as easy as you might think, given how many places I've seen that measure weight in Kelvin-grams (Kg).
Also
> It's so easy to stick to international units, folks. Please. PLEASE!
should be to stick to the language's usage of units. Not necessarily international units.
Even though the comment doesn't exactly apply now that I know MM can be used in finance, but I wanted to correct it to have a broader coverage.
Still less confusing than "mph" (I always read it as "meters per hour" and have to go back to correct myself).
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.
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.
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.
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.
* 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.
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
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?
[1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/onlyfans-management-agency-c...
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.
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.
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".
is it possible to write a non-seminal article about onlyfans, though?
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?
realize it's a torus and wander happily in circles
I have no idea what this sentence means
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.
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.
Wow, What a great analogy. That really is almost the same except not with music but sexual attraction.
> the content they're paying for really the same as you think is available for free,
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.
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.
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 have a friend who produces a few successful OF models and makes about 5-10x a good SF tech salary. He has a whole army of sexters who impersonate models and DM with fans. Vast majority of his income comes not from subscriptions, but from content sold in these DMs, content which is presented as "exclusive" to the buyer.
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.
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
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.").
Anyway, a lot of people who have never used the site before think it's mostly what you said. It's not. The parasocial stuff is tiny unless you're doing specific kinks for people.
What I tell most people not familiar with the industry is that it's usually more like seeing someone in real life (NOT a porn star, celeb, etc, amateurs only) that you've got a crush on naked for only $10/mo. It has the amateur thing a lot of people love. Another reddit comment is always "Why pay when porn is free?" Have you never had a crush on someone? And amateur porn is probably the biggest "kink" I feel weird even calling it a kink, I'm practically on the "who doesnt like amateur porn??" end.
That's 90% of the customers. Lots of people who think a youtuber or instagram or whatever not professionally showing themselves off is just hot and want to see them naked.
I've never spoken to a single customer. I'm a straight man and most of mine are men and I have no interest or desperation for money to do para/kink stuff.
I really don't get why so many people think onlyfans is about messaging talent back and forth. It's kind of annoying to constantly read because it always comes from non-OF users who have this weird morality/ethics problem with sex work. It makes no sense if you know anything about porn. Most people jack off in silence and close their laptop and there aren't thousands of onlyfans models with media managers. Most are 18-25yo women who work corporate jobs or bartenders and have their own life to live. They treat it like youtube, upload content a few times a week and never look at messages.
Don't kink shame, stop with the "I don't know why anyone uses this instead of that, you're a loser if you pay for porn" thing. You like what you like, other people like what they like.
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.
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.
Do they? Citation needed. So far it seems that marijuana consumption leads to far less violence than alcohol, and proliferation of porn leads to much lower rates of sexual violence.
> if everyone in your community is addicted to vices, that DOES affect me
Then choose and manage your own community, but don't push this view on the whole country. Dozens of millions of people (I don't know what country do you live in, so not sure about the population) are not a "community" that you can put under the same norms. If you think that porn is bad, it's your right to do so, and to find likeminded people to build a community that shares these values. But why would you want to force it on other people?
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.
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.
The entire system is geared around feeling unheard, unseen and paying to be heard or seen.
20k people shouting into a a void. Paying to get a badge signaling you subscribed. Paying to highlight messages hoping they are read. Hanging on for that hope this popular person gives you 10 seconds of attention.
That's the reality of the depressing industry. And that's how the streamers and steaming providers like it. Ever wonder why the stream chat experience has never been improved? ;)
Oh, and the toxic communities it breeds.
Naked people aren't fungible.
As a person who tried to start a startup but had been hacked and assaulted by the organizations who seem to maintain their monopoly by whatever methods they can use it’s more like a mob of pimps than a single pimp.
Edit: Maybe there is a correlation between Gamers and Porn.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
sounds like you meant "professional courtesy"
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.
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.
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.
A similar app creator talks about her experience and why it failed.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Otherwise, paid porn was already on the downswing due to the rise of free tube sites. Onlyfans somehow got men paying for porn again.
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.
The strip clubs were closed, the strippers and the patrons moved to the online strip club.
For me, iPhone feels like surfing the web with a 46kbauds modem. Single page at a time. Want to load two? IT RELOADS.
Almost all my apps do this to me about once a month.
[Obviously I don't let Android update my apps automatically in the background. That way lies madness.]
Ok, looks like a total UI refresh.
Tried to schedule a bill payment (which previous version could do, uhh, for 10y+) and threw a dialog saying “coming soon”.
Cost can be a downside, of course.
For vendors the obvious downside is the Apple/Google tax, and is something even we need to be wary of at the company I work for.
But it's not the only downside.
I work for a company that offers a service via the web but, recently, we wanted to prototype some functionality that would exclusively be used from mobile and tablet. It uses the camera, does some nifty stuff with AI (and, to be clear, no, it's not a porn app!), etc., and I thought well, why not prototype it with and app? And, furthermore, why not prototype it as a native app with Swift? This should be the lowest friction route to ddeveloping and deploying an app to iOS, has full access to the platform's extensive built-in capabilities, and therefore it would offer the best user experience, etc.
And I've always been happy to sacrifice a quantity of developer convenience for the sake of offering a better user experience. At the end of the day if we, as engineers, wanted easy jobs we picked the wrong career: we should be aiming to make the lives of our users easier and more productive, and that's often really challenging.
And I'll tell you what: as far as it goes, if I didn't need the app to interact with anything outside of Apple's platform I might still use Swift. It's a nice language, and whilst XCode feels a bit like it Deloreaned in from 2005, it isn't completely terrible.
But that's not our app. It needs to integrate with a bunch of other services and here is where the pain kicked in. Swift and iOS are absolutely the poor cousins when it comes to library and API support. For so many things I wanted to do libraries were incomplete, and documentation was... well, it ranged from non-existent to wrong in critical aspects.
And because Swift is niche (relatively speaking) it's very evident that it doesn't have the kind of mature ecosystem, thought leadership or best practices around it that the likes of C++, Java, C#, Python, and others do. I might be speaking out of turn here but I also get the vibe that it doesn't attract the kind of best of breed practitioners that other more niche development platforms have, which yields better library and API support for them even though they don't necessarily have huge developer bases: think Go, Rust, Flutter, etc.
I don't want to denigrate Swift because, as a language in isolation, I liked it (even though it's Objective C underpinnings are never far from showing themselves). But as a development experience, it was a complete nightmare. Outside of functionality that depended only on the device itself I struggled to get anything working well.
You could put this down to, well, you're new to the platform, what do you expect? But I was able to otherwise be immediately productive in Python 18 months ago when I started working with it, and didn't run into these kinds of frustrations.
In the end I literally got to the point of, screw this, let's just use web, or maybe a hybrid app with the thinnest of thin native wrappers, or maybe flutter. But not native, no way.
[0] I say little anxiety rather than no anxiety because I'm not generally a fan of free apps the serve ads, where you don't really know what's on the other end, or how they might be tracking you, and often the UX is such that it's made a bit easier than one might ideally like to accidentally click an ad.
Eh, with WebGL and WebRTC maybe. The problem is input
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
funnily enough out of the 42 employees still there, i assume less than a fourth are actually engineers.
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.
I don't really understand this. Digital art on Instagram is generally unique, but porn is not. Sure, there are some onlyfans models that cater to a very niche kink - I get why people would pay for that. But most of them just post regular naked photos/videos of themselves.
What is the value proposition here? You probably wouldn't pay for a Patreon of an artist that draws those generic boring corporate illustrations that every company uses, even though they have a use and still take effort to create. So why would you support a specific person that makes content which is not in any way different from any other person like that?
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.
Seems illegal, or at the very least a violation of OF's Terms of Service.
good job
How did you market this? Do you have a website for it?
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.
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.
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.
Donate to streamer, get mention, get hit of dopamine.
Donate to OF person. Get a “personal” video. Get a hit of dopamine or whatever chemical corresponds to love/friendship.
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.
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.
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?
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
I always read "mph" as miles/hour and "m/h" as "meters/hour"
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.
But that really reflects the Internet in general. How many people browse HN vs. vote vs. comment?
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.
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.
(edit: replace SEO spam blog with original host)
Because their content is different enough. Getting back to the art example: everyone’s art is unique BUT you can still find other artists that are similar. Sure there will exist other models who look very nearly the same at first glance, but everybody is, in fact, unique! And even two people with nearly identical physiques may create different material. The differences may be subtle to some but very distinguishable to others.
I might just have an eye for the small differences too. I am friends with several people who take lascivious photos of themselves for fun and/or profit. I get to talk with them about it - context, lighting, angles, etc. I just dang ol’ appreciate the craft! It’s not always an attraction thing or arousal thing: the human form is gorgeous and beautiful and utterly divine and manifests in so many different shapes and sizes! And taking well-crafted photographs of any subject is an art!
And maybe that’s why I gravitate towards it - so much pornography is like junk food, but not all adult content has to be! Some of it is like a well crafted meal, featuring quality ingredients prepared well by a skilled cook :)
…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.
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.
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.
https://nida.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/2023/12/repor...
Some might just want to check out their form. Or upload an inspirational workout video.
million * million = terra
10^6 * 10^6 = 10^12
It's all in the timing, sometimes.
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.
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.
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.
\1 Real life identification via images posted online.
This can happen to anyone and more specifically it has a very high chance of happening to people who use OnlyFans and think they'll remain unknown - which runs counter to the opinion expressed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41529846
[ .. Nobody will know who you are .. ] 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 offers actual OnlyFans creators an "out" if they wish to have lives seperate to their OF persona's - they can claim anything dug up to be a deepfake (in the absence of any contrary metadata that's definitive).
It's also something that will plague anyone with images online; it's probable that in the future people will pay as little attention to photorealistic videos of Margaret Thatcher blowing Ronald Reagan as they do those of the girl next door getting filthy with a centaur.
Steps are being taken to counter deep fakes, those steps will likely fail to some degree.
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.
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.
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.
I would say there's a greater risk hiring sanctimonious prudes.
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.
Can you explain that more? In my mind anyone can rationalize their behavior ("a way of describing, interpreting, or explaining something (such as bad behavior) that makes it seem proper, more attractive, etc.", https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rationalization), so no experience is required. Even preschoolers can do it.
> 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.
Do you have the thread? Or can you give more context? Were they OnlyFans models? Were they subscribers defending their participation?
Hmm I doubt I could find the link unless I dug my last year reddit history comment by comment. I think these were dudes defending girl models decisions.
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.
I'm talking backpacks, lunch boxes, t-shirts, hats, etc. You know, merch.
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...
That depends. Ask Erick Adame[0] about the toll being outed took on his life.
[0] https://www.advocate.com/media/erick-adame-weatherman-webcam...
Obviously such a person is not relationship material for a sex worker, but why would you think he ought not be relationship material for anyone else?
still, it's a clue that what he wants out of the relationship is not an equal partner but a sort of brood mare or something. here in argentina, the kind of guys who would have a problem with former sex work often use the term 'mileage' (kilometraje) when they're talking about why they want to date virgins. they see you as a commodity to be consumed (the explicit analogy is comparing your vagina to a used car) and see your own sexual expression not as an opportunity for your flourishing but as degrading and damaging to you, since you are the good being consumed in the sexual encounter. this is the same conception of human sexual relations that underlies the rhetoric that prostitution is 'selling your body', rather than renting it like any other kind of hazardous physical labor, and that gives the name to the 'purity rings' worn by evangelical high school girls
this implies that, unless he's looking for a no-sex-until-marriage relationship (an honorable but tiny minority of such men), he's looking to exploit you, putting some mileage on your vagina, as he sees it. he's hoping you'll let him degrade your purity with his penis, if you aren't too used up already
of course, different people are different, and not everyone who has these hangups buys into this whole misogynistic ideology. but it's a real thing, and it's something that women have to be cautious of
the practical problems that result, even for non-former-sex-workers, are that guys like that are likely to have problems with the fact that you actually weren't a virgin when you started dating (unless you were, but that's also a tiny minority of all intimate relationships); if, god forbid, you get raped in the future, he might abandon you when you most need him, considering you to be 'damaged goods'; and he probably will feel entitled to cheat on you, since you're the good being consumed, and he's the consumer. in the best possible case, where he wants to be celibate until marriage and honestly monogamous afterwards, you're probably looking at a year or more of celibacy followed by marrying someone you might not have sexual chemistry with
If so, how?
Should they be required watching in elementary school? If not, why not?
https://usafacts.org/articles/minimum-wage-america-how-many-...
However, that figure doesn't include the people who make a dime over minimum wage. 23.3% of American households earn less than $35,000/yr
https://www.statista.com/statistics/203183/percentage-distri...
This number would decrease dramatically if our national minimum wage was raised to $15 or more per hour.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't think it actually demonstrates this. As your wording hints, the hard part of writing is getting yourself out of the slush pile and into an editor and publisher's hands, and Stephen King's actions relied on his existing relationship with said editor and publisher to publish under a different name. He never demonstrated pulling the feat of escaping the slush pile again.
In modern content creation, the similar metric is getting to, say, 1k views, or even as prosaically simple as being part of the 50% of streamers to get 1 view. It's not sufficient to have talent to get to even that level of success; there is a lot of luck necessary to get you there.
That isn’t true - I think the people who don’t make it are massively skilled. It’s not random in the sense it’s just selecting randomly from the population. It’s random in the sense that there are 100 elite content producers but at any given moment there is only space for 10 of them.
Stephen King has a massive leg up for already having built the inroads for having a successful book. I think if you give any elite, yet unknown writer, the same tools, editor, and publisher they would succeed. But to truly succeed from nothing may just depend on going to school with someone who became an editor, or the editor’s daughter showing them a TikTok. That’s what is meant by it’s largely random.
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?
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.
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.
It's another flavor of bodily autonomy.
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.
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.
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”.
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)
It's like international law:
There are fixed rules, until there aren't.
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).
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.
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.
An excellent porn star name.
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.
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.
If you assume that all of their content is included-with-subscription and not separately-purchased add-ons, sure, but my understanding is that that's not the most common business model on those sites.
> 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.
Or they'd allow creators to remove previous posts, thereby giving them the ability to control whether or not they want posted content to expire, what schedule they want it to expire on, whether they want expiration applied equally to all content, and whether any or all of the expired content would be then made available to purchase as add-on content, and on what terms. (AFAIK, they do, in fact, allow this.)
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
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.
“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
No, progressives in general don't. In fact, the assumption on which this attitude rests, that anything, particularly any clothing or activity of the target, causes objectification besides the choice of the objectifier is a conservative, victim-blaming viewpoint that is widely attacked by progressives.
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.
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.
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.
Emotions are just emotions. Might as well just stop with the whole "dating" thing and only use each other transactionally when we want kids. Or better yet, just don't reproduce, right?
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.
If people are going to a porn site to spend relatively small amounts of money to get "genuine human to human interaction," there are more than a few flaws in their strategy. Unless they're spending many thousands of dollars a month, there could be no reasonable expectation they're getting anything but extremely superficial interactions. If they get mad because they think they should get an e-girlfriend for $10 a month or whatever, I'd say that's on them because of unreasonable expectations.
Honestly, I think gen AI is pretty much inevitable for these kinds of parasocial services, but it will be clandestinely used because otherwise it makes perfect sense for the "content creator." Whatever relationship they think they have is an illusion in their head anyway, and they're probably expending a fair amount of energy to maintain it.
If it's not done, then creators have a fundamental time cap to the amount of personalized content they can create.
If it's done, but users don't know about it, then creators increase their revenue several times.
If it's done, but users do know about it, then creators lose several multiples of revenue.
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".
I've never done business with them and am not interested in buying that kind of content, but it certainly seems like an improvement over any more traditional sex-related work for those who are interested in being in that market.
That said, people only need to _believe_ it's real.
When it's that easy to screw up, it's easier and cheaper to pay real humans $1k a month for sexting than to build an LLM-based system that never makes mistakes and is 100% secured against prompt injection.
...
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.
there were some women that wanted to excise the presence of other women, because they (purportedly) felt that men didnt take them seriously after being around the other women. but thats a problem with the particular men?
it was masqueraded as progressive and was successful, they were the only women in tech representation and people didn't challenge the inconsistency
The same is true for their clients but they don't get the same treatment.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
If you feel a strong connection to a character and they barely know anything about you (or barely feel anything towards you), that's not truly social.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Especially I think most people don't know about steaming, never watched a single live streamer, but if we filter them out, then among people who watched a live stream at least once amount of hours spent might be higher.
> 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.
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.
I was imagining the most diabolical addictive AI girlfriend. That's necessarily going to include 'negative' elements.
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.
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.
The biggest callout is that NSFW AI already has 10% relative market share compared to OnlyFans. And there are no frontier models in that market.
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.
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.
What AI girlfriends will do is mimic perfect Hollywood relationships, complete with hot makeup sex.
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.
People say stuff like that, but I'm skeptical. It probably indicates more about "your friends and acquaintances" than mine.
> still, it's a clue that what he wants out of the relationship is not an equal partner but a sort of brood mare or something.
I don't think you can infer that from not wanting to date a former sex worker, and you seem to be fixated on a certain stereotype (which may be super common in Argentina, for all I know). Others may not want to date a former sex worker for other reasons, for instance because the choosing sex work indicates a willingness to use intimacy transactionally and to be manipulative (or at least insincere) as well as experience and habits of doing that.
sex work seems to be anything but manipulative. It is rather blunt. Give me money and I will provide this service. Said service can be pretending acting like someone who actually love doing it for you or have feelings but this "acting" is not hidden.
If your issue is manipulative and insincere people, I would say the people you want to avoid are people working in politics, marketing, insurers or people reaching some level of management in general.
i'm not just talking about a simple stereotype, though; i'm talking about a whole misogynistic ideology which is so widespread that you have to understand it in order to give any coherency to widely used phrases like 'sell your body' or 'purity ring'
i don't have any experience with prostitutes or camgirls as a client or social media manager or anything, so i can't really speak to their transactional use of intimacy and manipulativity, or lack thereof. they certainly seem sincere enough in the social interactions i've had with them, though hard to shock and rather unwilling to 'go along to get along' or to use euphemisms
intuitively i'd think that such a 'willingness to use intimacy transactionally and be manipulative' would tend to improve their earning potential, as with waitresses who are willing to flirt with clients, or psychologists whose work depends on clients trusting them with intimate emotional details, but many other factors seem like they'd come into play in all of these situations
Honestly, it seems like you're conflating many different things (e.g. the "mileage" thing above, "purity rings," and the pejorative connotation of "sell your body") into a single artificial whole that doesn't actually exist as such. I'd grant the "mileage" thing is probably clearly a part of some "misogynistic ideology," but not the other two. The Wikipedia page on "purity rings" lists examples of male (now) celebrities who once wore them. The idea of "selling your body" being pejorative connects to the idea of commerce being corrupting (which is seen elsewhere, such at the concept of "selling out") and I don't think male prostitutes would be seen any more favorably than female ones.
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.
I’m not saying there’s no room for disagreement there but simply that the two problems aren’t identical.
> 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.
"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..."
A fair number of these states had to be held at gunpoint to eliminate slavery.
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.
That being said, if you are pulled over by a federal agent in a legal state, if you meet the federal requirements you can still be prosecuted for possession of marijuana at the felony level, that being said, unless you were doing something super sketchy like having a full pound of weed split into little baggies or something, that is unlikely to stick.
one clarification, though: i wasn't talking about the pejorative connotation of "selling your body", but rather the idea that a prostitution transaction amounts to a sale of a physical good (a body) rather than a rental of the good (and a sale of a service). to be coherent, this entails the premise that the sexual encounter leaves that good seriously and irreversibly damaged—and that the prostitute's client is not similarly damaged. indeed, a weak implication is that he benefits from the transaction
as for male prostitutes, part of the same meme-complex in many cultures is that being penetrated is what damages and degrades you; this is often bound up with ideas of male superiority, because the male role in vanilla penis-in-vagina intercourse is the role of the penetrator. in other cultural contexts, what's considered degrading is sex with men, who are of course almost always the clients of male prostitutes. but i agree that there is a lot of variation
there is also a lot of variation between people, and someone might be fertile ground for the 'purity ring' meme not because they feel that sex degrades women (or penetratees) but because it's just dirty and impure all around. this is the underlying metaphor for idioms like 'taint' (as a synonym for 'genitalia'), 'dirty joke', 'dirty old man', and so on. but you may be aware that boys wearing 'purity rings' is kind of a man-bites-dog phenomenon, rare enough to draw comment. the wikipedia article says that it became the 'focus of media attention' on the jonas brothers (the celebrities you mention)
someone who finds sex repulsive might be relationship material, but not for a conventional allosexual monogamous relationship. they could work well with an asexual partner or a polyamorous partner
For example Google is abusing their position by feeding a stream of right-wing and related stuff to my mother because she clicked a Trump video a friend(?) sent her so that she watches more of this stuff, gets more negative emotions, and continues to spend her time on their site. Trying to regulate these things is terribly hard and whatever idea you come up with, the folks at big tech will find a way to go around them.
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.
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.
The Egyptian priest quote is muddied too - https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/4923/was-this-q...
I wouldn't build an argument on them...
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.
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.
Someone in this thread has pointed out that the it's only the actions considered unacceptable that have changed
In the first case, someone is making decisions in their personal life which do not affect anyone else. They are not asking for special treatment, they are only asking that other people stay out of their private life. They also do not have any authority over other people and are not setting policies.
In the second case, someone is acting publicly to take away freedoms from other people even though their exercise of those freedoms had no impact on them personally. That person is also in a policy-making position over many affected people.
I think it’s reasonable to say that the two cases are different both due to the internal vs. external direction and the distinction and power differential.
Parasocial relationships are not bad per se. Let's say you are thinking about Donald Knuth when working on a computer science problem, nothing bad here, taking inspiration from the leaders in the field. But it is also a parasocial relationship, it is like imagining Don Knuth next to you, helping you solve your problem, even though he has absolutely no idea about who you are. It is a one way connection, but here, it is actually productive.
If you’re ignoring the “believe you have a two way relationship” then everything could be defined as parasocial.
It feels like it is two-way, in other words, it is an illusion, but just like with optical illusions, you don't have to believe them. For example, mirages may look a lot like water, but people who are familiar with them know it is just a trick of their senses and don't assume there is water there. Same thing for parasocial relationships, even the most intense. Proof is, parasocial relationships with fictional characters is common, and most people who feel a bound with Harry Potter are not crazy enough to believe the feelings are shared, as they are aware that Harry Potter doesn't actually exist.
And yes, I believe that parasocial relationships are extremely common and in most case, positive or at least harmless. I don't believe reading biographies is always parasocial though, it could just be the search for academic knowledge, without any feeling of connection, but done repeatedly, in can become one, which is again, not necessarily a bad thing.
You can absolutely have a parasocial relationship with Anne Boleyn, and I suspect most people who study her in depth do, as picturing oneself with her can help better understand her life and its historical context. It is essentially a mind hack, instead of just using logic, you also use emotions.
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.
Now, the waiter at our office lunch restaurant that we went to like every 2 or 3 weeks knowing exactly what each of us would order and even the ones that alternated between 2 or 3 dishes he'd ask "oh is it the butter chicken or the chicken tikka today?" makes sense and is impressive and appreciated. He didn't do any non essential small talk instead of doing his job either.
On the other hand you have restaurants where you're a table for two and the guy doesn't remember who had which dish when serving in a basically empty restaurant.
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.
A quick search shows... of course there was!
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/06/06/the-record-eff...
The analog to actually having sex would be playing with the band on the stage.
‘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.’
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.
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.
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.
As someone who frequently goes to concerts, I can absolutely testify that the audience can vary a lot between cities. You can usually tell if the band/artist is genuinly enjoying their performance or if they are doing the bare rehearsed minimum.
If you read/watch interviews with touring musicians, all have stories about how "Tokyo was crazy", "London was boring" etc – even though the set list was the exact same every evening.
People build connections whatever they do, we have had phone sex for a long time. Now you need a camera and take some clothes off to do it. It is obvious that the people who manage to earn a lot streaming are mass producing content. There are ones who strive for a social connection and the creators who give that are never going to be big earners. Same as small venues.
> Taylor has always cultivated a parasocial relationship with her fans, and her success is in no small part due to this cultivation. Here are just a few examples besides just her deeply personal and largely autobiographical lyrics:
> 1) Publishing her personal journal pages in the four different versions of the Lover album.
> 2) Inviting fans to her house for Secret Sessions to listen to her albums before release dates.
> 3) This direct quote from the Eras Tour in Tampa: "I'm really loving this tour. It's become my entire personality and I've always loved putting on shows, always loved that connection... Knowing you have felt the same way... I need you guys very much for my well-being."
> 4) The Fearless TV announcement. "This was the musical era in which so many inside jokes were created between us, so many hugs exchanged and hands touched, so many unbreakable bonds formed, so before I say anything else, let me just say that it was a real honor to get to be a teenager alongside you..."
> 5) Leaving secret messages in the liner notes of her physical CDs and the eventual TS culture of Easter Eggs.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TaylorSwift/comments/13zlbi9/paraso...
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).
Haven't some OF creators come out admitting they were pressured into it, or at least doing it more than they'd like.
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).
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...).
Die quickly at 30, with 10 children and some grandchildren even. Sounds like mission accomplished to me.
> 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
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.
In an ideal world, 100% yes.
In our world, where every now and again a crazy power-hungry dictator appears and wages a war against a weaker country and is killing civilians - unfortunately it's a comfort we can't afford.
With the risk of being political, I see nothing "defensive" or moral about the military, even in the most advanced nations that are supposedly paragons of human rights.
Take the "dictator attacks weaker country" narrative. The NATO defensive alliance fits this narrative by providing weapons and military training to weaker Ukraine so it can defend itself against the aggression of bigger Russia. On the other hand, the same defensive alliance has no scruples to providing weapons to Israel so it can wipe out and cause immense suffering and casualties to Palestine, a weaker nation.
Which brings me to my conclusion that there is nothing inherently moral about the army, it's just a blunt instrument to do the government's bidding. Hence, I don't see military as our "protectors", but as the government's institutionalized thugs. I also don't see a reason for them to be lauded for their actions, as their actions are often immoral and sinister. I am talking things like the military secrets Assange unveiled, or the illegal treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo, or the sometimes indiscriminate bombings of civilians to hit 1 potential target.
And since they are not protecting me but the government's interests, I don't see a need to thank them for their service more than I see the need to thank bouncers at a disco I don't own for theirs.
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.
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.
Considering the risk are bodily harm, there is some similarity to the risks of bodily harm that some sex workers take, and far more frequently, than soldiers. STDs, violent guys, etc etc.
> but for hard work
Do sex workers not work hard (pun potentially intended)? I don't see society praising them for their hard work and the risks they take.
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.
If I talked about putting all of the telephone sanitizers on a spaceship that might be a reference those of a certain age might be able to grok. :)
I found an abbreviated quote from the bit I’m thinking of in Bluebeard. Loses some of it, but gets his point across:
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/277466-simply-moderate-gift...
But I am quite sure I saw similar sentiments at least one other place in his work, and I think a couple places—years and years ago I read most of his novels, plus most of the collected short fiction and short stories, but it’s all pretty fuzzy now.
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.
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.
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.
According to the author, having separate words for singing and dancing is a relatively new phenomenon in linguistics, and the concept of a performer and an audience as a distinct separation is also relatively recent. He likens it to conversation - sure in any given instance there may be people more or less involved in the dialog of a conversation, but we would all think it very strange if someone said "I only listen to conversations, I don't talk in them" in the way someone today might say "I only listen to music, I don't sing/play/dance".
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Would you rather be flipping burgers all day for 30k or would you rather take a few nudes every week and make 300k?
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.
When it becomes fine, it will be worth no more than someone coming to mow your lawn, and probably less than that.
It seems the main complain is that it brings the prices down due to competition from eastern europe.
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.
Would it be a problem?
It's better to have a future where people don't have to do SW to make ends meet
A future where more people get forced into sex work because of economic reasons is not desirable. Consider the diseases, conflict with cultural norms, potential for rape and abuse
Sex should be freely given. "Free laborers" aren't freely giving their labor, they're forced to for economic reasons
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.
Drug dealers are also part of society, yet we still frown upon them.
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.
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.
It's about machines replacing human work, but it's not at all about the machines. It's about the people. It's about human dignity. Or, as Vonnegut says, it's about "a problem whose queasy horrors will eventually be made world-wide by the sophistication of machines. The problem is this: How to love people who have no use."
I can't say, I have never lived as a Bonobo.
- the Spanish inquisition
- jihad/crusades
- guns
- PFAS
- agent orange
- iron maiden (not the band, the torture device)
- the atomic bomb