zlacker

[return to "Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics"]
1. Random+hPb[view] [source] 2024-09-13 11:18:00
>>mef+(OP)
What I find fascinating/disturbing with OnlyFans and in some way with Twitch and streaming in general is more the client side than the creators. Here are basically people paying, and paying a lot, for parasocial relationships. Because clearly it’s not about the content per see which is a dim a dozen and available for free in trove.

I think it says something quite dark about our society as a whole that we have basically commoditised distress and are encouraging some people often themselves in dire circumstances to prey on others to the benefits of the middle men. I find these new pimps scarier than the old sort in that they pretend to have clean hands.

◧◩
2. makeit+JXb[view] [source] 2024-09-13 12:34:19
>>Random+hPb
> Because clearly it’s not about the content per see which is a dim a dozen and available for free in trove.

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

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

> commoditised distress [...] often in dire situations

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

◧◩◪
3. Secret+lZb[view] [source] 2024-09-13 12:45:52
>>makeit+JXb
But the OP is right about the parasocial aspect. OF content and other such platforms is about the personalization aspect. Sure, there's some kinks/fetishes too.. but it is primarily about engagement. In some ways, it's just an explicit, subscription based, social media platform where it feels like you're being treated uniquely... But most times you are not.
◧◩◪◨
4. itisha+91c[view] [source] 2024-09-13 12:58:59
>>Secret+lZb
How is that particularly different from, say, concerts? The social aspects are what drives value.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. pfannk+dbc[view] [source] 2024-09-13 14:11:47
>>itisha+91c
This comparison is backwards.

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

Recorded music is much more like pornography.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. makeit+Odc[view] [source] 2024-09-13 14:34:16
>>pfannk+dbc
I'm not sure I follow, how is listening to music performed by another human live different from watching another human performing a sexy act live ?

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

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. pfannk+Ufc[view] [source] 2024-09-13 14:48:01
>>makeit+Odc
Fair point.

The reason I don’t think only playing with the band counts is: in a hunter gather tribe 70,000 years ago, did everyone sing all of the songs all of the time? Or did some people just listen, at least some of the time?

Practically speaking I think it must have been the latter.

Of course there are lots of unnatural aspects in live music still, like too many people, too loud, etc. But recorded music is wholly unnatural, like pornography is.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. nullst+Nkc[view] [source] 2024-09-13 15:21:09
>>pfannk+Ufc
> Practically speaking I think it must have been the latter.

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

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
9. RevEng+yUc[view] [source] 2024-09-13 19:21:08
>>nullst+Nkc
Agreed, that's my experience growing up in a family where we regularly sang songs together casually as part of parties. It was less about listening to one performer and more about being part of the performance. Same still happens today with things like choirs - people are in it for singing with others, not for the eventual public performance. It's a very social activity.
[go to top]