this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2024
122 points (87.2% liked)

Technology

59207 readers
2513 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 64 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

It's definitely more ethical in that it allows the creators to get more of the money.

But that doesn't mean there aren't issues. Clearly it doesn't fix the whole issue of people under 18 sometimes making their way into the industry. It's not a silver bullet that fixes an entire (sometimes problematic) industry.

I don't know who was trying to tell you that OF solves everything about the porn industry, there would be no further issues, and that we'd live happily ever after, but that was obviously never going to be the case.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

Also the article isn't even so much about underaged users trying to get on the platform to post pictures of themselves or trying to gain access to porn, OF seems to be fairly good at keeping them out, it's adults posting content involving minors and that's a lot harder problem to prevent without literally going through every upload manually.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago

Yeah.

Diaz set up an account and had a woman verify it as hers. That woman, whom police didn’t identify, later quit OnlyFans. But her account remained live and accessible to Diaz. He filled it with videos of the underage girl

That's really not easy to catch, no matter what platform you are. Some people will do complicated shit to evade the eyes of the law for their illicit activities.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It's almost like creating a platform where the intent is for users to post content without any kind of curation or manual review is itself a flawed idea. I understand how tempting the whole thing is, to set up a platform that allows you to be a passive middleman and take a cut of all activity on the platform.

Should be a law that if a platform is making money from something, it is also responsible for that content. Curation shouldn't be enforced by law, but the legality of the content should be, whether it be illegal on its own like in this case or fraud. Ads included.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You do realise how ironic posting that to Lemmy of all places is?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago

I'm talking about the commercial platforms where the idea is to scale up to the point where some small fee results in large revenues and companies often scale beyond their capacity to review the content of their platform. Others end up hurt in the process while the company makes money from it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (3 children)

OF take 30% I think. What does an average scene make on OF? How does that compare to the pay rate for old school porn?

[–] [email protected] 19 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

I think 30% is a fairly common number. That's also the exact share Google, Apple take if you're a programmer and sell Apps on their platform. And probably also what you're facing when selling online courses or other things. I'd be surprised if a platform that also offers some infrastructure, takes less than say 20 or 30%.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 4 months ago

For comparison with non-porn, youtube takes more than 50% from adsense and 30% of supetchat/super thanks .

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

From my understanding, it’s higher than OF alternatives

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Are there good (more ethical? cheaper?) OF alternatives? That's not my world at all...

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

Fansly exists, there are others that’s I’ve seen referenced but it’s not something I’m super familiar with.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I think receiving 70% of the prices that you yourself set and deem acceptable is likely better than ?% of whatever PornHub or XHamster say they made from your video predominantly through ad revenue.

At the very least, it gives creators a great amount more control. In terms of setting prices, in terms of creating content they want to make as opposed to what a production company says, in terms of how you want to advertise, in terms of whether you want to lock your content behind a paid tier or not, etc.

And 30% is also pretty standard. Google, Apple, Valve, etc all charge 30%. Shit, on twitch it's 50% IIRC. I'm not saying it's perfect and couldn't be cheaper, but it's the usual market rate.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Do most employers spend 70% of their profit on the staff wages?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

How is 70% of what customers pay the same as 70% of their profits?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I guess that depends on the overhead. How much does it cost to maintain an Only Fans business?

Since equipment (camera, lighting, outfits, toys, etc.) is a fixed 1-time cost outside of consumables such as makeup, condoms, etc., I'd imagine that the profit margin is relatively high compared to most other types of business.

But that's just me making inferences, I have no authority or experience in these fields.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Those purchases aren't paid for by Only Fans. It's the content creators who pay for all that (unless there's a way to get sponsored by OF, I don't know). However, reliably storing and streaming video in high quality across the globe with low latency, both live and on demand, which is what OF does, is expensive af. It's one of the reasons, if not the main one, there are no real competitors to YouTube.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

You mean gross revenue, not profit. 30% profit is after expenses including CoGS/wages and is good money if it scales.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Creators on OF or any social media platform can't be compared to employees. They are more like suppliers.