3 ms·

The problem is that this seems like DAAS (deception as a service), possibly even fraud.

by nickff 2y ago

prmoustache 2y ago
Really? Do people really think OF "performers" really enjoy interaction with random dudes fapping in front of their screen. Shouldn't there be a level of candidness at which it cannot be considered deception? I mean we accept casinos/gambling and religions in our societies for example.
- lazide 2y ago
  Fraud is lying for financial gain. If the site is saying ‘chat with X for $5/min’, and you never have any interaction with X at all for your $5/min, that seems like a pretty clear cut case doesn’t it?
  - genewitch 2y ago
    "Give god the first portion of your income. Don't spend it and come sunday say i'll just give god a little of what's left. Give god the first portion of your income!" Yeah, ok.
    - dylan604 2y ago
      Okay, I've been in and around both sides of religions, and I do believe this is the first attempt at saying tithing is an act of fraud. I don't necessarily disagree. Just noting that it's the first time. I'd assume the down votes were expected with this one.
      - genewitch 2y ago
        Yes, expected. The explicit order is to give "god" the money. This confers a benefit to the tither, per spec (the spec is kinda old.)
        lazide 2y ago
        “But why does god need money?” - soon to be murdered guy.
- hmcq6 2y ago
  I have several friends who are "creators" who answer their own messages. I had an ex who warned me that she wouldn't mind if I watched porn but she wouldn't want me to use onlyfans because the platform encourages 1:1 communication. I wouldn't expect, like, Mia Khalifa (I'm out of the game, who's current?) to answer her own messages but there does seem to be an expectation that smaller creators are actually behind the accounts.
  - prmoustache 2y ago
    The fact they answer themselves or with help from someone is one thing. The fact they are sincere in their messages in another one. I know there are also some people who pretend they are falling in love with the prostitutes they pay to have sex but the terms are clear both in physical and online prostitution. It is all a business about pretending and consumers should expect that.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    Even if it is 1:1 communication, it's not like the two of you were likely to meet. The thing that I've always seen as the one to get upset about is if the person is local thirst trap type of someone that is much less famous and more of a possibility of real life interactions.
- account42 2y ago
  People being easily duped is not an argument for something not being a scam. In fact, protecting easily duped people from scammers is the entire reason for having laws against scams.
TeMPOraL 2y ago
It's not, not anymore than it already was. I guess there is some truth to the adage that a male body can't push blood both to the brain and to the penis at the same time - it's either one, or the other. I mean, if you step back and take a cold look at the content produced by popular OF performers, it's pretty apparent those are business operations. There are other people involved. Someone does the camera work. Location work. Promotion. And yes, fan management too. Same applies to YouTube personas, too. Brands, not people. Talking to fans is a job that can be outsourced. AI doesn't introduce anything new; AI features on the platform are competing with creators' brand management agencies, which themselves likely already use ChatGPT for this anyway, because why wouldn't they? ChatGPT does better job at this stuff and is cheaper than human labor - but again, the AI angle isn't important here - that human labor was just a generative model in a protein substrate anyway.
- nickff 2y ago
  >"It's not, not anymore than it already was." Maybe it already was fraud. I expect to see class-action lawsuits on the way soon.
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    It wasn't. It perhaps should've been, but instead, it was just "legitimate marketing practice". This is another facet of a larger phenomenon, that I just commented on in another thread[0] - there's a lot of harmful activity that's considered legitimate, thus invisible to our legal and cultural immune systems, yet no less harmful than the slightly less legitimate scams. -- [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42401894 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42401894
    - nickff 2y ago
      Your linked post seems to be a polemic, not a legal analysis. Many advertisements are subject to successful (expensive) class-action lawsuits based on some fraud or truth-in-marketing claim. Also, this isn’t an advertisement, it’s a communication which takes place under an implied contract.

The problem is that this seems like DAAS (deception as a service), possibly even fraud.

by nickff 2y ago

The problem is that this seems like DAAS (deception as a service), possibly even fraud.

Really? Do people really think OF "performers" really enjoy interaction with random dudes fapping in front of their screen. Shouldn't there be a level of candidness at which it cannot be considered deception? I mean we accept casinos/gambling and religions in our societies for example.

lazide 2y ago
Fraud is lying for financial gain. If the site is saying ‘chat with X for $5/min’, and you never have any interaction with X at all for your $5/min, that seems like a pretty clear cut case doesn’t it?
- genewitch 2y ago
  "Give god the first portion of your income. Don't spend it and come sunday say i'll just give god a little of what's left. Give god the first portion of your income!" Yeah, ok.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    Okay, I've been in and around both sides of religions, and I do believe this is the first attempt at saying tithing is an act of fraud. I don't necessarily disagree. Just noting that it's the first time. I'd assume the down votes were expected with this one.
    - genewitch 2y ago
      Yes, expected. The explicit order is to give "god" the money. This confers a benefit to the tither, per spec (the spec is kinda old.)
      - lazide 2y ago
        “But why does god need money?” - soon to be murdered guy.
hmcq6 2y ago
I have several friends who are "creators" who answer their own messages. I had an ex who warned me that she wouldn't mind if I watched porn but she wouldn't want me to use onlyfans because the platform encourages 1:1 communication. I wouldn't expect, like, Mia Khalifa (I'm out of the game, who's current?) to answer her own messages but there does seem to be an expectation that smaller creators are actually behind the accounts.
- prmoustache 2y ago
  The fact they answer themselves or with help from someone is one thing. The fact they are sincere in their messages in another one. I know there are also some people who pretend they are falling in love with the prostitutes they pay to have sex but the terms are clear both in physical and online prostitution. It is all a business about pretending and consumers should expect that.
- dylan604 2y ago
  Even if it is 1:1 communication, it's not like the two of you were likely to meet. The thing that I've always seen as the one to get upset about is if the person is local thirst trap type of someone that is much less famous and more of a possibility of real life interactions.
account42 2y ago
People being easily duped is not an argument for something not being a scam. In fact, protecting easily duped people from scammers is the entire reason for having laws against scams.

TeMPOraL 2y ago

It's not, not anymore than it already was. I guess there is some truth to the adage that a male body can't push blood both to the brain and to the penis at the same time - it's either one, or the other. I mean, if you step back and take a cold look at the content produced by popular OF performers, it's pretty apparent those are business operations. There are other people involved. Someone does the camera work. Location work. Promotion. And yes, fan management too. Same applies to YouTube personas, too. Brands, not people. Talking to fans is a job that can be outsourced. AI doesn't introduce anything new; AI features on the platform are competing with creators' brand management agencies, which themselves likely already use ChatGPT for this anyway, because why wouldn't they? ChatGPT does better job at this stuff and is cheaper than human labor - but again, the AI angle isn't important here - that human labor was just a generative model in a protein substrate anyway.

nickff 2y ago
>"It's not, not anymore than it already was." Maybe it already was fraud. I expect to see class-action lawsuits on the way soon.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  It wasn't. It perhaps should've been, but instead, it was just "legitimate marketing practice". This is another facet of a larger phenomenon, that I just commented on in another thread[0] - there's a lot of harmful activity that's considered legitimate, thus invisible to our legal and cultural immune systems, yet no less harmful than the slightly less legitimate scams. -- [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42401894 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42401894
  - nickff 2y ago
    Your linked post seems to be a polemic, not a legal analysis. Many advertisements are subject to successful (expensive) class-action lawsuits based on some fraud or truth-in-marketing claim. Also, this isn’t an advertisement, it’s a communication which takes place under an implied contract.