4 ms·

> This is fundamentally different than being a fan of, say, an actress like Emma Stone, or an athlete like LeBron James. That's because neither Emma Stone nor

> This is fundamentally different than being a fan of, say, an actress like Emma Stone, or an athlete like LeBron James. That's because neither Emma Stone nor LeBron James figured out how to enter into micro transaction relationship with the fan base. Bella Thorne did. The rest will now either have to flip into that mode or lose their celebrity status.

lostgame 6y ago
No, because this kind of thing is intentionally exploitve and these models make money by exploiting mental illness, particularly loneliness. Even in the case of mobile apps and micro transactions. I have shamefully worked (for a short time) for a company that used to have serious meetings about how to exploit these types of people. I've had a lot of friends into camming, and tbh it kinda sucks to watch some of them bend their morals and who they are more and more as it becomes harder and harder to ignore the money that comes with it. LeBron James licensed the shit out of himself for video games, action figures, commercials, etc - and I'd argue other than the commercials, which are exploitve by nature, none of this is specifically exploiting anyone. It's entertainment. I'm asexual, but I have absolutely nothing wrong with pornography on principle. I still have friends who cam ethically. Unfortunately in the past performers more often than not ended up exploited. Now the tables are turning and some performers like Bella just end up exploiting their viewers, and that's just sad. I mean Bella literally bailed on $200 pay per view stuff and essentially exploited her past as a Disney star, of all things, to draw attention to herself, and as a result has single-handedly irreversibly screwed over the lives of every other performer on the site by forcing monthly instead of weekly payments. Bella Thorne didn't figure out how do to micro transactions. She thought she could take advantage of her micro celebrity status to give herself an advantage over others, exploited hundreds, and screwed over hundreds, probably thousands of performers. I have a lot of friends in the sex industry and camgirl industry as the queer communities which I am a part of often are supportive to these folks, and it's awesome that the people who choose to do this non exploitavely can do it. I don't think it's that different in that case from being any other kind of celebrity, except I do believe it is obviously objectively riskier.
- notyourday 6y ago
  > I mean Bella literally bailed on $200 pay per view stuff and essentially exploited her past as a Disney star, of all things, to draw attention to herself, and as a result has single-handedly irreversibly screwed over the lives of every other performer on the site by forcing monthly instead of weekly payments. I disagree. She screwed over lives of every other performer on a platform by showing up and running the numbers. Her being a former Disney star was immaterial - she happened to be someone that people fantasize about seeing naked or barely dressed hundreds if not thousands times more than they fantasize about seeing other camgirls, etc. Some of those people were willing to pull out their credit card. The response would have been the same if it were one of the Hadid sisters or the likes of Emma Watson. > Bella Thorne didn't figure out how do to micro transactions. She thought she could take advantage of her micro celebrity status to give herself an advantage over others, exploited hundreds, and screwed over hundreds, probably thousands of performers. Either her or someone in her camp convinced her that by doing what she did she would make a massive amount of money based on micro transactions as opposite to getting $20,000-$50,000 appearance fees or $200,000-$2,000,000 deals. It is no different from celebrity influencers pushing out the micro-influencers by consuming the available market. Those with millions of followers will command more attention and hence more money than those with thousands. > I have a lot of friends in the sex industry and camgirl industry as the queer communities which I am a part of often are supportive to these folks, and it's awesome that the people who choose to do this non exploitavely can do it. I don't think it's that different in that case from being any other kind of celebrity, except I do believe it is obviously objectively riskier. The celebrity is measured by the amount of money these people can make via fees. Clearly Bella can make orders of magnitude more than the others which is why we are talking about her and not about a cam girl with 450 paying followers.
- dkersten 6y ago
  > screwed over the lives of every other performer on the site I don't think what Bella did was right, but in my personal opinion, charging $200 to view some images and soliciting "donations" of over $100 a pop is extremely exploitative, so I'm sorry, but I don't have much sympathy here.
- matz1 6y ago
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
Emma Stone and Lebron don't deal with monetizing micro-transactions with their fan base because they already make so much money that would be a time wasting side-show for the amount of work it would be.
- notyourday 6y ago
  LeBron made only $89 million dollars in 2018, of which 59 million was from his salary, which means his total endorsement deals were only $30 million Paris Hilton made between $250,000 to $750,000 to walk into a club for one hour.
hellotomyrars 6y ago
Mainstream celebrities aren't going to lose their status because they don't sell suggestive pictures of themselves for small dollar figures. Social media has created a new type/class of celebrity but it isn't replacing the old ones.
- notyourday 6y ago
  > Social media has created a new type/class of celebrity but it isn't replacing the old ones. That's no longer the case. Social media celebrities who have not broken into the mainstream celebrity class are on downward trajectory as the social media has been democratized.

lostgame 6y ago

No, because this kind of thing is intentionally exploitve and these models make money by exploiting mental illness, particularly loneliness. Even in the case of mobile apps and micro transactions. I have shamefully worked (for a short time) for a company that used to have serious meetings about how to exploit these types of people. I've had a lot of friends into camming, and tbh it kinda sucks to watch some of them bend their morals and who they are more and more as it becomes harder and harder to ignore the money that comes with it. LeBron James licensed the shit out of himself for video games, action figures, commercials, etc - and I'd argue other than the commercials, which are exploitve by nature, none of this is specifically exploiting anyone. It's entertainment. I'm asexual, but I have absolutely nothing wrong with pornography on principle. I still have friends who cam ethically. Unfortunately in the past performers more often than not ended up exploited. Now the tables are turning and some performers like Bella just end up exploiting their viewers, and that's just sad. I mean Bella literally bailed on $200 pay per view stuff and essentially exploited her past as a Disney star, of all things, to draw attention to herself, and as a result has single-handedly irreversibly screwed over the lives of every other performer on the site by forcing monthly instead of weekly payments. Bella Thorne didn't figure out how do to micro transactions. She thought she could take advantage of her micro celebrity status to give herself an advantage over others, exploited hundreds, and screwed over hundreds, probably thousands of performers. I have a lot of friends in the sex industry and camgirl industry as the queer communities which I am a part of often are supportive to these folks, and it's awesome that the people who choose to do this non exploitavely can do it. I don't think it's that different in that case from being any other kind of celebrity, except I do believe it is obviously objectively riskier.

notyourday 6y ago
> I mean Bella literally bailed on $200 pay per view stuff and essentially exploited her past as a Disney star, of all things, to draw attention to herself, and as a result has single-handedly irreversibly screwed over the lives of every other performer on the site by forcing monthly instead of weekly payments. I disagree. She screwed over lives of every other performer on a platform by showing up and running the numbers. Her being a former Disney star was immaterial - she happened to be someone that people fantasize about seeing naked or barely dressed hundreds if not thousands times more than they fantasize about seeing other camgirls, etc. Some of those people were willing to pull out their credit card. The response would have been the same if it were one of the Hadid sisters or the likes of Emma Watson. > Bella Thorne didn't figure out how do to micro transactions. She thought she could take advantage of her micro celebrity status to give herself an advantage over others, exploited hundreds, and screwed over hundreds, probably thousands of performers. Either her or someone in her camp convinced her that by doing what she did she would make a massive amount of money based on micro transactions as opposite to getting $20,000-$50,000 appearance fees or $200,000-$2,000,000 deals. It is no different from celebrity influencers pushing out the micro-influencers by consuming the available market. Those with millions of followers will command more attention and hence more money than those with thousands. > I have a lot of friends in the sex industry and camgirl industry as the queer communities which I am a part of often are supportive to these folks, and it's awesome that the people who choose to do this non exploitavely can do it. I don't think it's that different in that case from being any other kind of celebrity, except I do believe it is obviously objectively riskier. The celebrity is measured by the amount of money these people can make via fees. Clearly Bella can make orders of magnitude more than the others which is why we are talking about her and not about a cam girl with 450 paying followers.
dkersten 6y ago
> screwed over the lives of every other performer on the site I don't think what Bella did was right, but in my personal opinion, charging $200 to view some images and soliciting "donations" of over $100 a pop is extremely exploitative, so I'm sorry, but I don't have much sympathy here.
matz1 6y ago

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

Emma Stone and Lebron don't deal with monetizing micro-transactions with their fan base because they already make so much money that would be a time wasting side-show for the amount of work it would be.

notyourday 6y ago
LeBron made only $89 million dollars in 2018, of which 59 million was from his salary, which means his total endorsement deals were only $30 million Paris Hilton made between $250,000 to $750,000 to walk into a club for one hour.

hellotomyrars 6y ago

Mainstream celebrities aren't going to lose their status because they don't sell suggestive pictures of themselves for small dollar figures. Social media has created a new type/class of celebrity but it isn't replacing the old ones.

notyourday 6y ago
> Social media has created a new type/class of celebrity but it isn't replacing the old ones. That's no longer the case. Social media celebrities who have not broken into the mainstream celebrity class are on downward trajectory as the social media has been democratized.