3 ms·

>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 on

by slg 6y ago

>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 6y ago
> 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 6y ago
  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 6y ago
    > 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.
    - oars 6y ago
      I just want to say that this is a really fascinating discussion and I want to thank you both for this. You both have really opened my eyes to both sides of this argument.
    - slg 6y ago
      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 6y ago
        > 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-happy/ https://blog.onlyfans.com/5-content-tips-to-keep-your-fans-h...
- smabie 6y ago
  I mean, with onlyfans you are paying for content like anything else, right? Or do you just pay for messaging access? I was under the impression that you were paying for photos and videos and such.
  - hackinthebochs 6y ago
    Yes, its pay for content.
- chii 6y ago
  > Onlyfans is, arguably, positioned to specifically exploit parasocial relationships. i don't see anything wrong with that - it's a need that is being fullfilled. In a sense, it's the same category as prostitution, or gambling.
  - nostrebored 6y ago
    These are all terrible industries that are literally exploitative. Some in different directions. This is filling a need like meth cures boredom.
- hnlmorg 6y ago
  As you've admitted yourself, this isn't the kind of thing you're into and because of that, I think you're running the risk of demonizing an industry simply because you cannot understand nor relate to it. Titillation has always been profitable (eg why product advertisements feature attractive models) and it's not always about loneliness (though I'm not going to dispute that it sometimes is). Sometimes it's just about fun or primal desire. I know couples who have been to strip clubs and paid for dances -- happy couples who just enjoy the adult nature of it after a few beers. It's also entirely possible to lust after something without being lonely. Just as it is possible that some people have a comfortable income and feel like they want to pay for the content they consume -- whether that's literature, music, film and TV, or nude selfies. You might intellectualise about which form requires greater creative input but ultimately there's still someone putting themselves out there and trying to pay their bills. I tend to look at this stuff like fast food. Some people like it, some people hate it. As long as you consume it in moderation -- which most people do -- then it has a right to coexist with fine dining restaurants.
sbarre 6y ago
Sure, fair enough, my example was too narrow, and I guess you assumed I meant that was the _only_ reason they donate. I was comparing the call-out to the shallow "direct" interaction of the meet-and-greet specifically. But yes you're right, in the broader sense, people donate because they get value out of the content, and they want to support the creator. Other parasocial factors may or may not be present as well.

by slg 6y ago

dvt 6y ago

> 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 6y ago
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 6y ago
  > 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.
  - oars 6y ago
    I just want to say that this is a really fascinating discussion and I want to thank you both for this. You both have really opened my eyes to both sides of this argument.
  - slg 6y ago
    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 6y ago
      > 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-happy/ https://blog.onlyfans.com/5-content-tips-to-keep-your-fans-h...
smabie 6y ago
I mean, with onlyfans you are paying for content like anything else, right? Or do you just pay for messaging access? I was under the impression that you were paying for photos and videos and such.
- hackinthebochs 6y ago
  Yes, its pay for content.
chii 6y ago
> Onlyfans is, arguably, positioned to specifically exploit parasocial relationships. i don't see anything wrong with that - it's a need that is being fullfilled. In a sense, it's the same category as prostitution, or gambling.
- nostrebored 6y ago
  These are all terrible industries that are literally exploitative. Some in different directions. This is filling a need like meth cures boredom.
hnlmorg 6y ago
As you've admitted yourself, this isn't the kind of thing you're into and because of that, I think you're running the risk of demonizing an industry simply because you cannot understand nor relate to it. Titillation has always been profitable (eg why product advertisements feature attractive models) and it's not always about loneliness (though I'm not going to dispute that it sometimes is). Sometimes it's just about fun or primal desire. I know couples who have been to strip clubs and paid for dances -- happy couples who just enjoy the adult nature of it after a few beers. It's also entirely possible to lust after something without being lonely. Just as it is possible that some people have a comfortable income and feel like they want to pay for the content they consume -- whether that's literature, music, film and TV, or nude selfies. You might intellectualise about which form requires greater creative input but ultimately there's still someone putting themselves out there and trying to pay their bills. I tend to look at this stuff like fast food. Some people like it, some people hate it. As long as you consume it in moderation -- which most people do -- then it has a right to coexist with fine dining restaurants.

sbarre 6y ago

Sure, fair enough, my example was too narrow, and I guess you assumed I meant that was the _only_ reason they donate. I was comparing the call-out to the shallow "direct" interaction of the meet-and-greet specifically. But yes you're right, in the broader sense, people donate because they get value out of the content, and they want to support the creator. Other parasocial factors may or may not be present as well.