
Bella Thorne, OnlyFans and the battle over monetising content - clouddrover
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-53979625
======
dvt
For years, I was profoundly puzzled by people that are willing to give
hundreds -- if not thousands -- of dollars to (mostly women) they'll never
meet for what's basically freely available offline. I saw a very interesting
mini-documentary on YouTube[0] not too long ago that kind of opened my eyes.
The idea here is that places like Onlyfans, and to a lesser extent Twitch,
monetize loneliness via parasocial relationships[1]. This is _fundamentally_
different than being a fan of, say, an actress like Emma Stone, or an athlete
like LeBron James.

Viewers (the subject) actually _believe_ they have a relationship with the
object (be they a pro gamer or scantily-clad model). To most well-adjusted
folks with a healthy social circle, this seems kind of nuts, but parasocial
relationships have a long and sordid history -- starting with the invention of
the "fireside chat" on radio. Loneliness is a powerful motivator and the
psychology here is profoundly interesting. At the end of the day, I'd say
places like Onlyfans end up being net negatives for both the models as well as
the fans. It's a bit sick that the internet -- the very thing which was
supposed to bring people _together_ \-- ends up cannibalizing its own.

[0]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djMojvschs0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djMojvschs0)

[1]
[https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20...](https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100305809)

~~~
compiler-guy
The economics of entertainment (and that is what an only-fans account is:
entertainment) don't follow this cold calculation of value.

A single ticket to an NBA playoff game ranges from about $150 to over $5,000
(back when you could go).

You can see the game for effectively free at home, with better commentary,
exactly the snacks you want and all of that.

A night at the symphony or opera starts--starts--at $50 a ticket, and can go
to $1500 easily. After the show is over, it's over, and all you have is a
memory.

Good seats at a popular rock concert are easily $250. You can get the mp3 for
next to nothing, and it will be a better recording too.

Even just a movie these days starts at almost $20.

And yet people still fork out the money. It isn't just the show itself that
they are paying for, it is the entire experience. The interaction, being part
of the crowd, a crowd. Many things.

The value captured by an entertainment here isn't just the bits of the
picture.

And I say this as someone who would never, ever pay for the content I know of
on only fans. But I have sunk a lot of money into the other things on the
above list.

~~~
dvt
> and that is what an only-fans account is: entertainment

While trivially true, this is extremely reductive. People don't attend
basketball games, operas, or go eat at Michelin star restaurants because
they're _lonely_. People donate thousands to streamers and models because they
are.

~~~
sbarre
> People donate thousands to streamers and models because they are [lonely].

Speaking of being reductive...

Consider the possibility that people also do it because they enjoy the
interaction they get out of it, however shallow and/or fleeting.

The same way some people pay top dollar for a "meet and greet" with rock stars
or athletes before a show or game, where you get to shake hands, take selfies
and trade platitudes with famous people and then they never see you or think
of you again.

People donate to streams to hear the streamer thank them or call them out by
name or interact with them, in some manner, for some amount of time.

I'm not saying loneliness is not a factor, but it's definitely not the only
factor. Like everything else to do with human interactions, it's complicated.

~~~
slg
>People donate to streams to hear the streamer thank them or call them out by
name or interact with them, in some manner, for some amount of time.

Let's get one more accusation of reductiveness in here.

You are still viewing it through a lens of parasocial behavior. The token
thanks isn't the only motivating factor. People don't donate to NPR just to
get tote bags. They donate because they recognize the content has both value
and costs. Those donations are part of recognizing that value and supporting
future content creation. The same applies to streaming. Some donations are a
means of thanking the streamer and providing them with both a means and a
motivation to continue making content.

The interactive nature of the content on a site like Twitch doesn't
necessarily make it any different than non-interactive content you might find
on a site like Patreon.

~~~
dvt
> People don't donate to NPR just to get tote bags. [...] The interactive
> nature of the content on a site like Twitch doesn't necessarily make it any
> different than non-interactive content you might find on a site like
> Patreon.

Comparing someone like Pokimane or Amouranth to NPR is laughably disingenuous.
There are _amazing_ content creators out there (ranging from math, to dance,
to music, to films, to politics) that _don 't_ exploit parasocial
relationships with their audience. Onlyfans is, arguably, positioned to
_specifically_ exploit parasocial relationships.

~~~
slg
I'm not comparing their content. I am comparing their business models. I don't
see many differences between the business model of NPR and many Twitch
streamers. They give their content away for free knowing most people will
never pay for it, they ask for donations knowing only a small percentage would
be willing to donate, and they give donators a few token gifts as a thank you.

You admit yourself there are "amazing content creators out there... that don't
exploit parasocial relationships" so why are you judging everyone by the
standards of the worst examples you can find? That is why you were also
accused of being reductive.

~~~
dvt
> You admit yourself there are "amazing content creators out there... that
> don't exploit parasocial relationships" so why are you judging everyone by
> the standards of the worst examples you can find? That is why you were also
> accused of being reductive.

Because the article is about Onlyfans and Bella Thorne: a platform (and a
creator) that leverages parasocial interaction. It's not like models make
Onlyfans accounts to fund their science and math YouTube channels.

~~~
slg
The conversation grew beyond talking specifically about Bella Thorne or
Onlyfans in part becomes of comments like yours from a few posts back:

>People donate thousands to streamers and models because they are [lonely].

So once again you are making generalizations about this business model and the
people who participate in it because of the worst examples you can find. Maybe
that means Onlyfans and other similar services need more moderation, but it
doesn't mean this business model is unethical or inherently preys on the
lonely.

Also AFAIA the only real difference between Onlyfans and Patreon is that one
allows adult content. I am having a hard time understanding why someone would
be against one and not the other unless the reason was due to some ingrained
prudishness. Is there any difference between the two that I am missing?

~~~
dvt
> Also AFAIA the only real difference between Onlyfans and Patreon is that one
> allows adult content. I am having a hard time understanding why someone
> would be against one and not the other unless the reason was due to some
> ingrained prudishness. Is there any difference between the two that I am
> missing?

Yeah, I guess I should've been more clear.

I don't think that the only difference between the two is that Onlyfans merely
"allows adult content." Onlyfans is specifically aimed towards monetizing
parasocial behavior (why you buy private messaging rights[1], etc.). Patreon
is a way meant to support creators. I sub on Patreon to several creators, but
there was no parasocial element: I didn't pretend to be someone's friend and
no one sold me on that.

[1] [https://blog.onlyfans.com/5-content-tips-to-keep-your-
fans-h...](https://blog.onlyfans.com/5-content-tips-to-keep-your-fans-happy/)

~~~
slg
From that link:

>3\. ENGAGE

>Importantly, as with your existing social platforms, make sure you engage and
interact with your fans, as it’s a two way street. Using this to your
advantage enables you to create a more personalised experience and strengthen
the bond between you and your fans. OnlyFans private messaging facility puts
your fans in direct contact with you, and you can ask what they would like to
see. This way you can tailor your plan to give fans more of what they want.
Asking fans what they most want will help you understand their preferences and
you can build the most popular requests into your plan.

I don't think anything listed here is advice that is specific to Onlyfans.
Engagement is generally good for all creators.

I have also supported numerous creators on Patreon, mostly podcasters. Not
every creator on Patreon follows this advice. There are certainly some that
setup a clear one way transactional relationship in which you donate money and
they give you content. However I have subscribed to creators that prioritize
interacting with their patrons. That has included live interactive patron-only
streams, Q&As, as well as fielding requests for specific content. Patreon also
does have private messaging, but I have never used that functionality before
so I don't know all the details.

I don't get the impression that all engagement is meant to fool me into
thinking that the creator is my friend. I don't think that necessarily would
change if the content creators were taking off their clothes versus talking
into a microphone. It is really all up to how the creator wants to handle
their business. Some like Bella Thorne might do so unethically. That doesn't
mean every creator will take that approach.

~~~
dvt
Let's not mince words: the fact that the platform itself supports features
like "private messaging" \-- when most creators are attractive women in their
20s and most subscribers are men in their 30s and 40s -- is kind of a red
flag. The staunch libertarian in me says "who cares, let people do whatever"
but I do think it's a net negative overall (not to mention quite sad).

------
palindrome818
There are 2 very different reasons for using OnlyFans. 1\. Sex workers are
using it to offer a luxury service (The Girlfriend Experience) to clients,
virtually. It's taking something that used to be only available to the very
wealthy and making it scalable. 2\. Celebrities like Bella Thorne, Tana
Mongeau and Cardi B are using it as a means of publicity, similar to the sex
tape strategy used by Kim Kardashian and Paris Hilton.

(There's a good doc about this on Youtube here:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsK_6VSmlMI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsK_6VSmlMI))

~~~
afiori
I though that for Kim Kardashian it was about riding the wave of a fake sex
tape and for Paris Hilton an actual leak she didn't profit from (similarly to
Jennifer Lawrence)

~~~
palindrome818
Everyone claims that it was leaked, but both of the sex tapes were timed to
come out during the first season of Keeping up with the Kardashians and the
first season of The Simple Life.

Life has a lot of coincidences, but the real question is- were they making
lemonade from lemons OR is it artificial lemon juice, something that looks
like lemons but isn't?

------
un_montagnard
I'm wondering if what actually happened is that Onlyfans leveraged the
backlash around Bella Thorne to implement the limits they have been thinking
about for a while, instead of implementing those as a reaction.

~~~
collyw
Do they charge a flat fee or some kind of commission? If its a flat fee I
guess it would be in their interest if its commission it wouldn't.

~~~
un_montagnard
It's commission based I believe. But it could still be in their interest to
mitigate chargebacks for example.

~~~
loktarogar
Chargebacks are HUGE in this field and all the mitigations you might find as
part of your big payment processor don't apply because eg. Stripe don't allow
any of this kind of thing on their platform.

~~~
CryptoBanker
That's funny because OnlyFans uses Stripe...

~~~
loktarogar
Ah, wasn't aware. One of my contract positions right now is in a sex worker
field and a lot of the infrastructure and billing needs to be done themselves.

~~~
chrischen
In some other HN thread it was explained that they use multiple CC processors,
and only use Stripe on the non forbidden by Stripe stuff.

------
rasz
My takeaway: Bella Thorne scammed tens of thousands of people, OnlyFans didnt
kick her off the platform, WTF?

~~~
theshrike79
You don't kick the golden goose.

It's the same reason why the biggest Twitch stars can do pretty much anything
on stream and not get banned, while normies get the banhammer immediately for
lesser offences.

~~~
hackerman123469
Remind me again how Dr. Disrespect could do pretty much anything on stream and
not get banned.

Dude did nothing and got banned.

~~~
charwalker
He's been banned before for issues like recording in bathrooms at cons. It's
all an act but streaming can be a 12+ hour day and it makes sense for his
character to 'get banned' especially when Twitch/etc won't comment and he can
take a summer vacation. He'll re-enter with some drama that'll make headlines
then be back up and running again with plenty of subscribers.

~~~
hackerman123469
You should see one of his latest videos. It's definitely not a stunt and also
if you follow his YouTube streams you'd know.

~~~
charwalker
I don't, mostly because he's a celebrity character and anything he says is a
PR release from his business. He just seems to trend up with various viral
moments or activities like recording/streaming inside a bathroom full of
people at a convention. It makes sense that someone who lives (literally) on
hype and attention would generate that whenever possible to further their
brand, just like a Kardashian. With that in mind, some unspoken ban, real or
not/insinuated or not, is an excellent chance to set up a big story when
you're back in the office and working again. Easy cover for time off and solid
cash back once streaming again.

------
renewiltord
Is it primarily a biological or cultural phenomenon that most creators of this
content are women and most consumers of the content are men? Honestly, I don't
know if that's true, but from what little this intersects with my news feed it
appears to be true.

~~~
kvgr
Most woman can get attention at some appropriate level. Even if not coolest,
prettiest, smartest. A lot of man can't. And the way to get together to be
attractive is sometimes hard. Better to pay for only fans than to shoot up
some place...

~~~
actuator
But is paid attention worth it, wouldn't it end up making you feel hollow once
that interaction is over and you realize how made up the whole thing was.

~~~
the_af
> _But is paid attention worth it_

Well, good old prostitution has been pretty successful since the dawn of
mankind, so the answer must be "yes" for a lot of people.

~~~
lmm
That logic would say that drugs, junk food, etc. are worth it. Plenty of
people spend money on things that bring them no joy in the long term because
they feel like they need them in the moment.

~~~
the_af
It's very difficult to objectively evaluate whether something is universally
"worth it" or "hollow" (I'm using terms from the original comment). You have
to place yourself as the ultimate judge of "long term" worth, which is a
doomed proposition. You're entering the realm of philosophy (or religion, of
course).

Why is long term always better than short term? Aren't there people who enjoy
junk food, and in fact love it? Is going to the movies a wasteful act, since
most movies don't give you long term enjoyment? Is playing videogames? Is
having sex with a person you don't intend to marry something that will "leave
you hollow"? Is casual sex worthless, or is it only a problem if you pay for
it?

~~~
lmm
I'm not taking a position on the broader question, but the blithe "it must be
worth it because people pay for it" is simplistic to the point of being wrong.

~~~
the_af
But your counterpoints (drugs & junk food) are trivially disproven: for a lot
of people, those are truly "worth it". Why, I still remember an argument I had
here on HN, years ago, where I said real homemade burgers were way better than
McDonald's, and had more than one people reply to me with "nah, sometimes I
really want a McDonald's burger, I really enjoy them".

As for prostitution, you have to admit such a long tradition of _existing_ \--
the "oldest profession", as the saying goes -- is strong evidence that it's
indeed worth it to a lot of people.

I'm not making a moral argument, by the way. Only your own personal
convictions, or your religion's, can tell you that.

~~~
lmm
> But your counterpoints (drugs & junk food) are trivially disproven: for a
> lot of people, those are truly "worth it".

Where's this trivial disproof? Citation needed.

> You have to admit such a long tradition of existing -- the "oldest
> profession", as the saying goes -- is strong evidence that it's indeed worth
> it to a lot of people.

No. It's strong evidence that a lot of people momentarily decide to pay for
it. That's not at all the same thing, because addiction exists and is
fundamentally not a phenomenon of rationality. A lot of addicts explicitly
recognise that the thing they crave won't, and doesn't, make them happy.

~~~
the_af
Citation needed? I take it you don't trust my word? Because I provided one.

As for your second point about addiction: you are entering the realm of the
highly subjective, randomly deciding which things are addicting and which are
worthy. I'm uninterested in that discussion. How do you even determine which
things are capable of bringing people long term joy and which aren't? Are
videogames worthy? Are movies? Is the fleeting less worthwhile than the
permanent? Etc.

~~~
lmm
> As for your second point about addiction: you are entering the realm of the
> highly subjective, randomly deciding which things are addicting and which
> are worthy. I'm uninterested in that discussion. How do you even determine
> which things are capable of bringing people long term joy and which aren't?
> Are videogames worthy? Are movies? Is the fleeting less worthwhile than the
> permanent? Etc.

I'm not saying you have to agree with me about which things are or aren't
worthy. All I'm claiming is that it is possible for something to be addictive
and not worthwhile, and so to show that something is worthwhile you need to do
more than showing that someone was willing to pay for it. Do you disagree with
that much?

~~~
the_af
Yes, of course it's possible. However, in this case the evidence points to the
contrary.

Here's how I see this discussion so far:

"But is sex worth it if you pay for it, or do you later feel it was a hollow
experience?"

"Well, prostitution's _huge_ success points to the answer being: yes, it's
worth it to a lot of people"

"(Tangent about the nature of addiction and worth)"

That's all there is to it, really.

~~~
lmm
It's not a tangent. It directly refutes "Well, prostitution's huge success
points to the answer being: yes, it's worth it to a lot of people".

------
pstrateman
High cost individual transactions sounds like elevated fraud risk.

I bet this isn't even their decision. (Card processor is probably making them
do this).

~~~
chard_slicks_
From what I understand Bella Thorne promised full nude images. When the image
that users payed for wasn't full nude this upset many users. Since OnlyFans
lacks a refund system many users issued charge backs in order to get their
money back. The large number of chargebacks are what prompted OnlyFans to make
the changes.

~~~
gpm
For the Bella Thorne case in particular, it seems like it could be handled by
onlyfans creating their own refund/fraud system.

Returning money received fraudulently seems reasonable and unlikely to be
challenged by content creators (whom you are presumably clawing it back from).
A short "escrow" period to enable this seems unlikely to be challenged by
content creators.

The problematic case for chargebacks are probably "all the other ones" that
aren't demonstrable fraud.

~~~
antihero
> A short "escrow" period to enable this seems unlikely to be challenged by
> content creators.

So people can pay for your content, look at it/screenshot it, and then refund
it. I think content creators may have an issue with that, yeah.

~~~
gpm
Escrow does not imply that they can refund it without some sort of process
agreeing with them.

For instance if they can prove that you defrauded them... as in the Bella
Thorne case...

------
colesantiago
Is there a reason why people would want to pay for this OnlyFans content?
Genuinely interested.

~~~
jonathanliu
Disclaimer: I don't and would never.

It's to feel a connection. Porn is free. Connection is not. Creators who sell
a connection make the most money. It's the same reason why guys will donate to
male Twitch streamers - they want to feel like they're best friends. The
streamers feed this fantasy to keep the dollars rolling.

People are lonelier these days.

~~~
noirbot
I think it's likely also some amount of wanting to support people. I know I've
added subscriptions to some streamers I've always watched because I'm watching
more of their content now that I'm at home all the time. It only seems fair to
pay them for their work if they're entertaining me for an hour or two each
day.

I don't care if they think I'm their friend. They're providing a service that
I enjoy and I should pay for it, especially now when I have the money to do so
and other people may not. If you could pay $5 a month for weekly episodes of
your favorite TV show, I'm guessing most folks would?

~~~
jonathanliu
That's true. I should've clarified that I was referring to whales. People who
are donating five figures are much more likely to fall into the "I want them
to be my best friend" category.

I used to subscribe to Twitch streams of pros that would play the game with
their subscribers. 5 bucks a month to play a game I love with a professional?
Heck yes. Playing soccer with Messi would cost a ton more.

Slightly shameful plug: I wrote about Bella/OF in my most recent newsletter
issue.

[https://mailchi.mp/242882f3b5db/synthesis-
emergence-17](https://mailchi.mp/242882f3b5db/synthesis-emergence-17)

~~~
srtjstjsj
Are newsletters the onlyfans for people selling their words instead of their
looks and moves?

~~~
jonathanliu
I've heard that comparison before, and it's apt. I'm not selling anything
though.

------
mrkramer
I wonder why Instagram is not doing this; free tier are your profile photos
premium are paid ones. But there should be a line between non adult and adult,
YouTube chose not to host porn and I think they did the right thing.

~~~
antihero
Because AFAIK Instagram and Facebook's apps rely on them not being adult
platforms due to the App Store and Play Store guidelines.

~~~
paxys
Even outside of app stores, adult content in general is a massive hole that no
large company wants to touch. There's a ton of overhead due to
scams/chargebacks, harm to the brand, content moderation and lots more.

------
biophysboy
When somebody like Bella Thorne wants to "destigmatize" sex work, what exactly
is he she talking about? Does she just want more people to respect the
profession outright? Because I think there are a number of hurdles to this,
even if we completely ignore traditional views on sex/relationships that a
huge fraction of the country holds. Sex workers are luxury service workers.
The job is transient and alienating. I feel like there are legitimate reasons
to be wary of sex work, even if you don't subscribe to "all sex for all people
must be in dedicated long term relationships".

~~~
GaryNumanVevo
Sex workers are workers. But they don't have the same labor protections as any
other blue collar or white collar job. The stigma from a cultural side is
pretty small, especially given the millions of dollars flowing into online sex
work.

The stigma from sex work being in a legal grey zone affects those who rely on
the income to support themselves and their family.

Also I would be interested to know what other professions you consider "luxury
service work" since I can't seem to find a proper definition readily.

~~~
mmsimanga
Is the stigma not on both sides of sex transactions? In my circles I don't
think anyone would boldly profess to being a regular at a brothel. Parent post
asked a legitimate question, it's not clear how she intends to remove stigma
on sex work.

~~~
erichocean
You remove stigma by desensitizing the broader population through repeated
exposure. She's just one drop in a very large bucket.

------
strikelaserclaw
thirsty dudes are big business.

~~~
chillwaves
This is the perfect TL:DR.

Lots of talk here by confused techbros thinking about how they can cash in on
this goldmine.

They should read your comment.

~~~
globular-toast
So how do you cater to thirsty dudes? If you can harness women, then you are
rich. Simple as that. Notice how anything like this will always be male owned.
It might seem like women are profiting in the short run, but ultimately they
have nothing unique to offer and as supply increases they'll see diminished
returns. Meanwhile the male owned business will only grow as demand won't
shrink and they're creaming off all of it.

~~~
myaccount275
>So how do you cater to thirsty dudes?

Self improvement and self help (real or just promised) are big ways to make
money in this area.

>Notice how anything like this will always be male owned.

I don't think it makes a difference to the individual creators whether the
middle-man profiting from this is male or female. The creators don't get any
better outcome either way.

~~~
globular-toast
Yes. But it's all about dangling the carrot of promised sex in front of men,
no matter how you dress it up. Self help is like selling a cookery book while
porn is like selling a takeaway. Most people will go the route of instant
gratification rather than a slow and difficult path.

~~~
myaccount275
Lot of self help content can also be more about feeling good while you're
consuming it, than actual lasting change. Even if it's generally good advice.
This guy made a video about it
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmLTLkCBSN8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmLTLkCBSN8).

And it's natural to blame the consumers for any failure rather than the
material ("you're just doing it wrong", "it's your fault you didn't apply it
correctly", etc.), which makes selling mediocre and just plain weak content
very easy.

------
ouid
And here I though that the outrage was going to be over onlyfans charging 20%!

------
bena
I honestly don't know what to think about the whole situation.

In some ways, it feels like current content creators on OnlyFans are making
the same complaints about Bella Thorne that certain communities were making
about content creators on OnlyFans before.

And there ain't no shame in their game. If people want to give OnlyFans
creators money for any reason, as long as the money is theirs to give, etc,
that's between them. What I think of the transaction is immaterial. It's about
as useful as the closet full of Lego sets I have.

And if people want to buy that content, why complain about the people
providing it. No, it's not typically hard work. And let's all not pretend that
it is. But. So what. Some people were just born wealthy. Some people just win
the lottery. Or have some other windfall. Not all wealth is earned through
hard work. That's just the way it is. I mean, look at all the people featured
in the article. They're all attractive women.

And more power to them if they've found a way they don't have to work hard to
earn themselves some money.

But it really feels like the current creators are complaining about Throne
because she doesn't have to work as hard. Or that she's had automatic reach
due to her celebrity status. That she doesn't even have to get nude to get
this money.

And that's the complaints made about the majority of creators by the people
who cannot leverage the platform like they can.

And it's not like the money sent to Thorne was going to affect the money sent
to other creators. It's not like OnlyFans has $X a month to split between
creators based on subscriptions. No, individuals choose to subscribe to
specific creators. The people signed up to subscribe to Thorne weren't
subscribing to OnlyFans because they like OnlyFans, they were signing up to
OnlyFans to subscribe to Thorne. Take her away and they don't even sign up.

And the cap limits are another thing in this debacle. They're trying to put
the blame for that on Thorne, but really, that's a move that was going to come
sooner or later. OnlyFans needs the subscribers more than the creators. The
content is pretty fungible in all honesty. So OnlyFans will take measures to
make sure the bleed is as slow as possible.

On the other hand, I get why they're frustrated by all this. It can be
difficult to watch someone waltz in and crush something you've been chipping
away at for a while. It can be difficult to have the terms of a platform
suddenly change under you and impact your income. Those are valid
frustrations. I'm just not sure if it's a frustration that's actionable on
their part. I think they just may have to suck this one up.

~~~
bobthepanda
The alternative is also to stake out on their own and create their own
platforms. OnlyFans is not quite the only game in town putting videos and
posts behind a paywall.

------
wirthjason

        “She charges up to $40 for lingerie pictures and videos or for content that implies nudity; $165 for topless photos and $200 for nude images and videos.”
    

I don’t get it. Who has the income to drop hundreds of dollars on pictures
like this?!?!

The internet is filled with tons of free images and videos. I can’t see the
point. I guess the “item” being sold isn’t just the image/video but rather the
“interaction” and maybe personalization.

~~~
matwood
> I don’t get it. Who has the income to drop hundreds of dollars on pictures
> like this?!?!

People drop hundreds and thousands of dollars on in-game coins. There is a lot
more money floating around than you realize.

~~~
fxtentacle
Didn't one of the android guys get into trouble for paying attractive girls a
full time salary in exchange for them doing what he tells them to do? How's
that any different from paying a girl on OnlyFans to produce a custom nude
photo? I presume both is more about demonstrating power than about the value
of the end result.

~~~
Something1234
Anyone have more details on this?

~~~
valleyer
[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-
sexual-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-
harassment-andy-rubin.html)

> The suit included a screenshot of an August 2015 email Mr. Rubin sent to one
> woman. “You will be happy being taken care of,” he wrote. “Being owned is
> kinda like you are my property, and I can loan you to other people.”

~~~
fxtentacle
Great quote. And yes, that certainly highlights that he wasn't paying her for
sex directly, but rather for the power derived from it.

------
LandR
> Ms Corbridge offers services ranging from $7-$25 "personalised penis
> ratings"

What on earth! I guess I'm so out of touch with what some people are after on
the internet.

~~~
ornornor
Can you imagine getting a “F” for a penis rating you requested and paid for
under the assumption that she’d be giving complacent ratings only?

------
btbuildem
Strange response by OF, to cap the fees. They're actively limiting their own
take (20% cut btw, kind of disgusting).

I think the right thing to do would have been to refund those whom she
defrauded with false advertising. If I understand the situation, she sold
photos as one kind of content, but delivered something else in the end?

If I bought a bag of potatoes but it turned out to be charcoal when I opened
it, I'd bring it back to the store for a refund or exchange.

------
notyourday
What happened is that the actual head showed up and squeezed everyone else
into a tail. Previous tail has been pushed out into a long tail.

If you have had a chance to work with the companies in the content scene, you
would recognize the pattern. A couple of top tier accounts (head) account for
the lion's share of hot content and hence monetization, the next level of
accounts (tail) - dozens to hundreds - has some hot content and hence
monetization but at a fraction of the previous tier. Finally the rest of the
accounts have nearly no hot content and hence no monetization (long tail).

From an outside perspective based strictly on the content itself it is very
difficult to determine the difference between tail and long tail. It is even
unclear the difference between some of the long-tail and the head.

------
Ericson2314
Not unlike the Spotify controversy where the middleman is happy to make it up
in volume, even if the seller can't.

------
bilekas
So she already makes 8k a month from her subscriptions and thats scraping by ?
Sorry if I dont feel any sympathy.

~~~
Traster
Quote

>Ms Michelle has 550 fans and makes $8,000 a month, charging a $30
subscription fee to users. She also relies on tips ranging from $5-$200 for
pay-per-view photos, videos and text messages.

>She says her OnlyFans work is the only way she can support her family due to
the pandemic, and fears many __other __content creators will struggle to make
ends meet going forward.

~~~
colesantiago
>She says her OnlyFans work is the only way she can support her family due to
the pandemic, and fears many other content creators will struggle to make ends
meet going forward.

Really? There's always working at Walmart, Target or even collecting an income
from Patreon?

~~~
aczerepinski
Can you really support a family working at Walmart? I can’t even imagine
trying to do that. Rent in a modest apartment in my town would be like 2/3 of
your income.

~~~
kikokikokiko
If your only option available is a Walmart job, you definately should NOT be
having kids. Society used to judge things like irresponsible pregnancies, and
everybody were way better off because of that.

~~~
slothtrop
Fertility rate scales with poverty. Those earning middle-class wages or higher
tend to have fewer kids, or none. Much is linked to education and access to
contraceptives. People will have sex, period. Shaming people for having kids
helps at nothing.

> Society used to judge things like irresponsible pregnancies, and everybody
> were way better off because of that.

Revisionist delusional fantasy. In Western society people had far more
children a couple of generations ago, regardless of wealth. The Church
pressured this as well.

~~~
kikokikokiko
Yes, people tended to have way more children. And pregnancies out of wedlock
were way less prevalent too. Having two Walmart paychecks instead of one per
household will make it way easier to raise a family. But nowadays single moms
are heralded as heroes... so-much-progress. Such progressive times.

~~~
slothtrop
That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read.

People laud single moms not because there's a virtue in being single while
raising kids, but because it's a hardship, particularly to do well.

------
znpy
It's funny to see this people complaining about losing their cash cow.

In all honesty, Kudos to them for milking those crazy amount of money off the
platform (and the people).

But in all seriousness: 1. one can't seriously believe that easy money will
always be this easy and abundant 2. competition drives the prices down and
fighting the stigma on sex workers drives the competition up.

I'm not being judgemental or anything, it's just that the whole argument does
not make sense, at all.

And btw as soon as something stops being a subculture, people like Bella
Thorne will start showing up. It's sad, but happens in every
space/environment.

~~~
collyw
sex workers - in this case there was no sex and very little work.

~~~
nickthegreek
Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the modern definition of a sex
worker.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_worker](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_worker)

~~~
timwaagh
I feel like this sort of definition doesn't serve any purpose beyond some
political correctness. In the sense of the definition, I have been a sex
worker (I programmed dildos once). But it doesn't feel that way at all.

------
bobwernstein
Anyone know of any aggregate accounts? could be good business.

------
jmnicolas
Time and time again we see the danger of letting an outside entity manage
things for you.

They make things easy for you but when you disagree with the way they run
things you're often left sol. And the cost to exit the platform is much higher
now.

------
lihaciudaniel
SIMP culture existed way before this trend of onlyfans, you would know rhat

------
_pmf_
"Content"

------
rvz
An important reminder to all "content creators" on someone else's platform:

 _What any monetisation platform can also give to them, they are more than
able to take it away._

Since it's their platform, they can do what they like. Best to just build your
following there and move out and run your own show while you can.

~~~
Cthulhu_
With some of the numbers shown, I'm amazed they're still using a party that
takes 20% of their innings instead of hiring a web company to set up their own
site. I wonder if they're trapped in exclusivity contracts (and get thrown out
if they fire up their own site), or just afraid of losing followers if they
migrate away from onlyfans.

~~~
dmurray
OnlyFans is doing most of the sales and marketing work here, which is 99% of
the value (nude pictures of hot "models" are a commodity). Charging only 20%
seems like a steal.

~~~
hackinthebochs
Actually, onlyfans does almost zero marketing work. There is almost no
discovery on the site. The only ones making any substantial money are those
with a built-in audience from other platforms.

------
wizu
When I was younger, I supported full legalisation of sex work because I
thought that to disallow it would be to remove the agency of sex workers who
had chosen that path as their profession.

Then I got older and read accounts of sex workers trafficked to European
countries where prostitution is legal I realised that some (but not all) sex
workers are actually participating in "legal" transactions under duress. In my
mind that invalidates the necessary consent required when the activity
involves sex work of some kind, making it unethical from the buyer to acquire
such a service despite it being legal locally. While trafficking is of course
still illegal, I am unclear about the laws protecting trafficking victims from
their "buyers" in non-consenting transactions.

Since it is practically impossible to confirm if a given sex worker is
participating under duress or not, especially when it occurs "remotely" as in
this OnlyFans situation, I would say it is always unethical to purchase such
services.

In addition, what I would consider "under duress" is fairly broad, not only
under threat of violence from traffickers, but also including economic duress
where an individual feels that it is the only way to earn an income to put
food on the table. In this vein, I would consider sex tourism to poorer
countries a form of exploitation and thus unethical, even though one could
argue the individuals from the poorer countries selling such services do so
"willingly".

This article writes that one of these women feels that she must engage in sex
work through OnlyFans because it is "the only way she can support her
family...". It leaves a bad taste as I would not consider that she is
participating in the transaction without duress, and thus actually consenting
in the transaction. Would you be okay with it if you knew that the woman you
were buying lingerie pictures "had" to do it? How would that not be a form of
exploitation?

However, one can extend this argument to any type of work. "She says her _____
work is the only way she can support her family...", replace with an arbitrary
line of work and activity (woodcutting/marketing/basketweaving). Is there any
thing that makes sex work special (apart from some puritanical opinion which
are not actually applicable), that would make such a transaction inherently
more unethical than say being forced to work at McDonalds because it's the
only way to make ends meet? Why would the latter more "ethical" than the
former, when an individual is still "forced" to sell their labor to survive,
what ever form that labor is?

~~~
stouset
> Since it is practically impossible to confirm if a given sex worker is
> participating under duress or not, especially when it occurs "remotely" as
> in this OnlyFans situation, I would say it is always unethical to purchase
> such services.

Applying this kind of blanket rule leads to all sorts of ridiculous
conclusions. Can you verify that the people assembling the very device you
wrote this post on aren't under similar amounts of duress as you clutch your
pearls over in this comment?

~~~
voxl
This really highlights the underlying problem. People don't have an unhealthy
attachment to sex. Who cares if Chinese children are being over worked and
under paid to make your iPhone, but God forbid there be even one sex worker
who is possibly working in unethical conditions. Let's just kill the entire
platform and livelihoods of every other sex worker!

------
cassalian
The outrage at Bella Thorne seems misguided... After all, she did not change
the policies, only fans did. Did her actions increase only fans timelines for
these changes? Maybe. But at the end of the day, I don't think that justifies
the outrage Bella Thorne is receiving over this. Am I missing some action that
she took that should justify the outrage: for instance, Bella meeting with
only fans to demand that the maximum allowed tip be reduced?

~~~
btbuildem
I thought the issue was fraud: she charged for nudes but delivered non-nude
photos.

~~~
michaelt
That was certainly fraud and a bad thing, yes.

But some reports say OnlyFans has been planning these changes for some time -
and by rolling them out now, they can make Bella Thorne take the heat instead
of taking it themselves.

------
debacle
Many people massively underestimate the effects of tech voyeurism. Even
relatively tame fans can be frighteningly deep in delusions of having a
connection with someone who they have little to no interaction with.

I encourage anyone perplexed by how Bella supports herself when there is no
scarcity on the Internet to pornography to check out Twitch's Just Chatting
category. Find a thumb of an attractive woman and click into her stream.

You will find many viewers who act as though they have a personal relationship
with a streamer. People respond in chat as though they are having a
conversation with the streamer. People donate (sometimes $10+) just to have
their message read on stream.

Most disconcerting, you will find a non-negligible amount of people who are
watching the stream + insulting the streamer in chat. These are people taking
time out of their day to participate in targeted, anonymous hate.

~~~
jonathanliu
[https://i.redd.it/jl8phukm3pf11.jpg](https://i.redd.it/jl8phukm3pf11.jpg)

Probably the most famous example.

~~~
ffpip
I don't know who to feel sad for.

He seems genuinely upset.

~~~
ALittleLight
I think it's pretty clear you should feel sad for the guy, who is obviously, I
try to say without cruelty, pathetic and misled. It's like people who are very
dumb falling for obvious scams - e.g. send me your money and I'll double it.

I don't mean that everyone watching these streamers is like this guy, but some
portion of them, probably a higher percentage of the donating "whales", likely
think that they somehow do have some kind of chance or relationship with the
steamer. These people, it seems to me, are essentially exploited for profit.

I realize it's not the same as a scam. Not the same exactly - because the
streamer never says or suggests she'll be your girlfriend for X dollars or
something, but knowingly or unknowingly the streamer is creating that
suggestion for some and profiting off of it.

It strikes me as a really complicated moral issue, because some people do seem
exploited by it, others like it, and the streamers benefit by it. I don't know
what to think about the enterprise, but I think it's at least clear we can
feel bad for that guy, even recognizing that he's being a jerk.

~~~
jrnichols
>These people, it seems to me, are essentially exploited for profit.

This has always been true of the online sex worker/camgirl/streamer world.
There have always been some that feel that way and are emotionally led on by
the actress, who knows exactly what's going on. It moved into Kik and then
Snapchat, Twitch, and OnlyFans. There are also some that will profit off of
manipulating emotionally questionable viewers and then calling them a simp
when they're out with their own friends. It's kind of a vicious world.

This will also be going on with the next big thing too. And the one after
that. I worry that it's actually causing MGTOW and intel culture to grow more
widespread.

~~~
ALittleLight
It's a good point that just as the actress bears some moral responsibility for
exploiting the pathetic, the company bears responsibility for that too. Maybe
easier to justify if you work for kik, but OnlyFans seems like it has a higher
ratio of exploitation to non-exploitation than kik.

