7 ms·

How is this not fraud, or at least false advertising? If I'm paying money to chat with a specific sex worker how is it even legal to let some random dude in a t

How is this not fraud, or at least false advertising? If I'm paying money to chat with a specific sex worker how is it even legal to let some random dude in a third world country pretend to be the person I'm supposed to be talking to? I've never personally engaged in these types of systems, but I don't think there's a problem with them as long as they are run honestly. It sounds like Onlyfans is exploiting workers and their own customers.

bawolff 7mo ago
I wonder to what extent the clients care. Either way its still paying for a fantasy.
- PUSH_AX 7mo ago
  if a person pays for a Nike product and receives a counterfeit, are we saying no harm no foul if they don’t realise?
  - bawolff 7mo ago
    No, i'm not.
    - PUSH_AX 7mo ago
      Good. Your initial comment makes no sense.
      - bawolff 7mo ago
        I'm not retracting my original comment, i just don't think your analogy is related to what i said and in many ways is the opposite of what i said.
        PUSH_AX 7mo ago
        If you don’t recognise the parallels then I don’t know what to say really. All the best.
        bawolff 7mo ago
        To use your own analogy, surely you must see there is a difference between someone attempting to purchase nike shoes and being tricked vs someone intentionally seeking out counterfeits (e.g. to get a deal) My comment is wondering to what extent the clients are "tricked" vs to what extent they know (or suspect) its not the real OF model and dont care as long as the fantasy is intact.
  - overfeed 7mo ago
    Nike determines what counts as a Nike product; it they are selling it, it is not counterfeit; It may be poorly made or made in ways you didn't expect, but nor counterfeit.
iugtmkbdfil834 7mo ago
But then.. how is it any different from Amazon saying automated stores while a human is watching cameras or waymo having humans operate in some circumstances. If there are no rules, you can't expect corporates to govern themselves in a way that does not benefit them..
- autoexec 7mo ago
  People don't usually pay for automated stores or rides because of the automated aspect. They just want to get the items or get to their destination. I think waymo was mostly upfront that humans are working behind the scenes, but if amazon lied to investors and shareholders by claiming that their stores were automated when it was "Actually Indians" I think they could/should have been sued.
- gruez 7mo ago
  >But then.. how is it any different from Amazon saying automated stores while a human is watching cameras or waymo having humans operate in some circumstances. Did amazon/waymo actually claim they were 100% automated? Moreover is the fact that they're 100% automated a material fact to the consumer? The investors might have grounds to sue for securities fraud, but it's going to be much tougher for a consumer, when for all intents and purposes they got what they expected (ie. whatever they bought from the shop). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_fact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_fact
  - abeppu 7mo ago
    > Moreover is the fact that they're 100% automated a material fact to the consumer? I do think that for a meaningful fraction of first time customers, the choice to try it is about the novelty of it being automated. In SF I do often see people explaining waymo to out of town visitors, and the uniqueness of "driverless" vs "remote controlled" is part of the appeal.
    - Ferret7446 7mo ago
      But that's not what they're paying for. You're hoping to get the automated experience but you aren't paying for the automated experience. This is like going to Hooters to buy a meal and then suing because the girl you wanted to see didn't serve you.
thedelanyo 7mo ago
[flagged]
whynotmaybe 7mo ago
Do we know if onlyfan is already training their own models with their user's content?
- giantrobot 7mo ago
  How could they not be? At $2 an hour they'd be leaving money on the table by not paying a tiny fraction of that for an LLM.
  - thfuran 7mo ago
    I don't think it's the platform paying the workers. I think they're third parties hired by the posters. Of course, OnlyFans itself could theoretically create and offer a service to replace them, but Fraud As A Service doesn't actually seem all that reliable as a business model.
    - anticensor 7mo ago
      That service is already offered by Fanvue.
- anticensor 7mo ago
  They do, but not an AI chatter.They train a content moderation model.
V__ 7mo ago
There is probably some lingo somewhere clarifying that you pay for the "experience" of her and not for her in particular.
- agreezy 7mo ago
  This is everywhere not just OnlyFan, sadly
mingus88 7mo ago
It is fraud. However, one thing has become crystal clear lately is that laws are only as good as we have systems in place that are willing and able to enforce them. And further, scamming people in the context of sex has always been easy because of the shame in admitting you fell for it. Imagine filing a report that you spent thousands of dollars chatting with some random person, having the chat logs submitted as evidence, etc. it’s similar to why all types of sexual assault are rarely reported
- ghurtado 7mo ago
  > because of the shame in admitting you fell for it. I would argue that the reason has more to do with our utter inability to create common sense laws regarding anything "sex".
  - jzb 7mo ago
    Which goes back to the shame thing, really. Few people are willing to stand up and advocate for common sense laws because they don’t want to be associated with anything regarding sex. Politicians, whom are not generally noted for being averse to hiring sex workers, sure as hell don’t want to be advocating for them for fear of losing elections.
    - aleph_minus_one 7mo ago
      > Politicians [...] don’t want to be advocating for them for fear of losing elections. This assumes that the politician plans and has a chance to become re-elected. If this is not the case, the arguments for not advocating for such laws become much less important for the respective politician.
      - monocasa 7mo ago
        A politician can rarely enact laws alone, and the above issues typically apply to enough politicians at a time to make having a quorum difficult.
shrubble 7mo ago
This was done by “mail order bride” companies like those in Russia and Ukraine, that charge per message or letter sent back and forth, using their platform that does not allow for contact information to be shared; you are not talking to Anastasia but “Hairy Boris”! Later scams evolved to use prerecorded video clips etc. Which I assume is next for OF also.
- thebruce87m 7mo ago
  What if I want to talk to Hairy Boris but I’m getting scammed by some blonde bombshell pretending to be him? I shudder at the thought.
SoftTalker 7mo ago
It's no more fraud than any other "fan club" where you got letters and personal autographs and such from the celebrity but didn't realize it was all done by a hired staff of employees. It's been a thing for decades.
- zarzavat 7mo ago
  You mean it's equally fraud as that. Fraud has a particular definition which does not permit "someone else is committing fraud and getting away with it" as a defense.
  - LogicFailsMe 7mo ago
    Not to mention politicians begging for money and in return you get begged for more money by more politicians.
neya 7mo ago
It is fraud. But these parties are protected by OnlyFans themselves. Similar to how dating apps promote (and actually lot of them enforce) fake accounts with fake pictures because it boosts everything - engagement and revenue. So they always turn a blind eye. Last week, I used a dating app where they used a fake profile tailored specifically for me, using a married woman's photo. I deleted the app. Every app in this space is scummy and the people at the top running these are just trash. That's the real reason.
fHr 7mo ago
It is blatant fraud and onlyfans should be suable for this. Fuck that whole company and all their bs pr management workers doing nothing getting rich on regarded male beta simp money.
- carlosjobim 7mo ago
  First you could sue all the singers who have lip synced in a live performance and see how it goes.
  - pjc50 7mo ago
    I'm reminded of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milli_Vanilli https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milli_Vanilli fiasco: nobody sued, but revealing they were lip syncing killed their career.
    - deafpolygon 7mo ago
      Girl, you know it's true
- sofixa 7mo ago
  But in this case its not OnlyFans doing the (potential?) fraud, it's the individual performers and potentially their agencies. OnlyFans just provide the platform and turn a blind eye.
enriquto 7mo ago
> It sounds like Onlyfans is exploiting workers and their own customers. But this is the basic principle of capitalism. The company exploits workers (in order to obtain a net benefit from their work), and exploits customers (by selling the lowest-quality, most expensive product it can manage to). Companies that don't behave like that get out-competed by companies that do. This dynamic is the root of our economic system, as was very clearly explained by Adam Smith and Karl Marx two centuries ago (in slightly different tones of voice). The particular case you mention is nothing special. The exact same thing happens for all the products that people buy. This is just the stable state of our (some would say "rotten", some would say "healthy") society.
- sneak 7mo ago
  It’s not exploitation unless the participants in the deal are being coerced. You can’t make a solid case for employees being coerced to work for an exploitative employer outside of company towns or non-functioning labor markets; neither of these apply to the Philippines. If the chatter thought the job was so bad, they can quit and get a different one. Millions of people make that choice, it is available to them. There is no requirement that they do this work; it is entirely voluntary. The people doing these jobs have determined that it is the best option for them, personally, or they wouldn’t be there. PS: $2-4/hr is a more than decent wage in the Philippines. Median income there is $2.11/hr, minimum wage is $1.36/hr.
  - TheOtherHobbes 7mo ago
    The requirement is that they not starve, not be made homeless, and not be forced into even less appealing and/or more dangerous work. The coercion comes from the very limited choices they have to avoid that.
  - enriquto 7mo ago
    > unless the participants in the deal are being coerced. Here's the nice thing about it: they are! If they don't work (for any of the equally exploitative companies in their country) they die.
superb_dev 7mo ago
I can’t believe that someone paying for this actually expects to chat with the model. Just think of the logistics, it would be impossible
- roysting 7mo ago
  [flagged]
- zozbot234 7mo ago
  > I can’t believe that someone paying for this actually expects to chat with the model. Just think of the logistics, it would be impossible It's not impossible, you can do it with a little bit of fine tuning starting from her history of chats on the platform, and having her set a custom user-level prompt where she lists her interests, hobbies and things she likes. Then give her auto-compacted daily or weekly summaries of the most compelling chats. It's a model either way, right?
- wolvoleo 7mo ago
  I have some models I really chat with, like outside of their performances. Not all day obviously and they often don't respond for days but that's ok. I know it's them because I can see them typing live sometimes and also some of them I know in person and they remember what I've said online.
- bombcar 7mo ago
  You’ve not even begun to scratch parasocial relationships- since there have been cases of murder, I think it’s safe to assume at least some think they’re really chatting with the model - and she loves them?
- DANmode 7mo ago
  The market is not you.
orthoxerox 7mo ago
On the one hand, yes, on the other hand, personal touch doesn't scale. Webcam models maintain a personal touch by broadcasting their interactions with those who tip, but OF models can't do that. They have two options when their customer base grows too large: Option one is to use these chatters. Option two is to chat only with those who pay extra or with no one at all.
- thebunnymaster 7mo ago
  [dead]
- Dylan16807 7mo ago
  If you can't scale part of your self-employment without scamming people, that's fine, don't scale that part. Being unable to sell 30 hours of work in a day is normal, not an excuse for fraud.
- dragonwriter 7mo ago
  As I understand, the norm (beyond very basic occasional things to whet appetites) is the first branch of Option 2, whether or not chatters are employed. The creator (or their agency) paying for chatters without it producing revenue doesn't make any more sense than the creator spending their own time doing it.
sequoia 7mo ago
Someone paid to have a fantasy of sex, and they got that fantasy. If they don't like it, they don't do it again, and this is true whether it's "the model" or someone else. If they do like it, what's the issue? This is like saying you paid for a celebrity plumber & a regular plumber did the work, but you're upset because you wanted the celebrity. "The job" got done one way or another. They're selling digital handjobs here, there's no need to be precious about it.
- lich_king 7mo ago
  > If they do like it, what's the issue? Are you serious? However goofy that sounds, they paid for a specific fantasy. They would not have paid if you advertised the service as "talk dirty with a random dude in India". If the reason they paid for this service is that they were promised a specific person, that's fraud. As simple as that. Your judgment about whether the services are equivalent doesn't matter. If I pay you for Gucci socks, and you intentionally send me cheaper HZBZZYXY socks from Amazon instead, that's fraud even if they're still socks.
  - Lapsa 7mo ago
    Jamtarians pride themselves with such deeds
  - overfeed 7mo ago
    > If I pay you for Gucci socks, and you intentionally send me cheaper HZBZZYXY socks The difference is t he product is 'blessed' by the official seller: Would you feel defrauded if Gucci sends you the Gucci-branded socks you ordered, but you discover later they were made by the HZBZZYXY factory in Guangdong rather than by an Italian master sock-craftsman?
    - BoingBoomTschak 7mo ago
      That question falls entirely under the legal concept of false advertising. Depends on what Gucci proclaimed.
jacquesm 7mo ago
You sound upset. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you%27re_a_dog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_...
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
9rx 7mo ago
Just wait until you find out that a MrBeast burger is not made by, or of!, the guy who plays MrBeast on TV either.
- otterley 7mo ago
  They’re not passing themselves off as MrBeast.
  - 9rx 7mo ago
    So you understand that a MrBeast burger isn't made by, or from, the person known as MrBeast, but when one pays to join the MrBeast YouTube channel you are certain the comments from user MrBeast are made by the person known as MrBeast? What's the difference?
    - otterley 7mo ago
      Feels like you're making this more complicated than it needs to be. The elements of fraud are quite simple: 1. a false statement of material fact 2. knowledge that the statement is false 3. intent to induce reliance 4. justifiable reliance by the victim 5. resulting damages The "buying a burger from a MrBeast cafe" fails to meet element 1, because nobody at MrBeast burger is falsely claiming to be MrBeast himself. On the other hand, falsely passing oneself as a model in order to earn revenue for them meets elements 1, 2, and 3. Elements 4 and 5 will depend on whether the victim fell for the scheme.
      - 9rx 7mo ago
        > nobody at MrBeast burger is falsely claiming to be MrBeast himself. Nobody said that they were. You must have forgotten to read the thread. When 'MrBeast' comments on YouTube to those who pay for a subscription to his channel, it is claiming to be MrBeast, however. But is it him? You completely understand he doesn't have time to flip burgers, and thus would never expect him to, so why do you think he has time to chat to random internet customers?
matheusmoreira 7mo ago
It is fraud but nobody cares anymore. Laws only matter if you're defrauding rich corporations with pockets deep enough to actually pay lawyers to sue you over it.
wolvesechoes 7mo ago
[flagged]
tokyobreakfast 7mo ago
Prostitution is not an industry known for its ethics or integrity.
- wolvoleo 7mo ago
  That's only really in jurisdictions where it's illegal. It just comes with the criminal aspect. In Holland they even have a union called the red thread.
  - freehorse 7mo ago
    It is also a case in jurisdictions where it is all legal, because to meet demand it becomes then more profitable to bring (illegally) trafficked women to meet it. In particular, netherlands appear to be one of the highest in trafficking inflows [0, Appendix B]. From [0]: > Our empirical analysis for a cross-section of up to 150 countries shows that the scale effect dominates the substitution effect. On average, countries where prostitution is legal experience larger reported human trafficking inflows. [0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X12001453 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X1...
  - tokyobreakfast 7mo ago
    do they have a pussy ombudsman to investigate malfeasance and poor customer service?
    - cindyllm 7mo ago
      [dead]
    - jacquesm 7mo ago
      The chances of that happening are 0.0001% compared to the chances of the visitors misbehaving.
  - blks 7mo ago
    Even in jurisdictions where it’s legal it’s still filled with exploitation - e.g. soliciting 18 year olds to do various sex work, like pornography, while they may not necessary understand what they are getting into and just chasing money they cannot get elsewhere. And how it’s correctly stated, trafficking is still a thing.
elorant 7mo ago
You’re not paying to chat. This isn’t therapy. You’re paying to see content and the chat is supposed to be complementary for support reasons.
kelseyfrog 7mo ago
It's probably buried in the ToS that who you're talking with is at the discretion of the hosting company. The only issue is that no one reads it.
freehorse 7mo ago
There have been lawsuits about it [0], however it seems most of them get dismissed by judges for one or another reason [1]. [0] https://www.courtwatch.news/p/onlyfans-sued-after-two-guys-realized-they-might-not-actually-be-talking-to-models https://www.courtwatch.news/p/onlyfans-sued-after-two-guys-r... [1] https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/court-throws-explosive-onlyfans-lawsuit-181531018.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/court-throws-explosive-o...
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
dbg31415 7mo ago
It might be fraud, but it’s hard to muster up sympathy for perverts on the internet. Imagine guys in their 50s who actually think an 18-year-old girl is talking to them. There are no innocent people on porn sites — just losers looking to exploit. Maybe it's just poetic justice that they're the ones getting exploited, no?
dbg31415 7mo ago
It might be fraud, but it’s hard to drum up sympathy for internet perverts. Imagine a guy in his 50s believing an 18-year-old with thousands of followers is personally texting him. It’s pure delusion - like going to a strip club and thinking the girls are actually into you. There are no innocent victims on these sites, just losers looking to exploit someone. Maybe them getting exploited instead is just poetic justice.
dzonga 7mo ago
these are all symptoms - the larger problem is there's a lot of lonely men out there - specially in the small towns. these people probably know they're not talking to the real model, but want someone to talk to. someone insert Blaise Pascal quote
PeterStuer 7mo ago
How many celebs, politicians, CEOs ... do you think manage their own socials?
- whatsupdog 7mo ago
  Nobody is paying to read their socials.
dragonwriter 7mo ago
> How is this not fraud, or at least false advertising? It may or may not be fraud or false advertising depending on the specific representations made in the particular case and the local fraud and false advertising statutes that apply in the case. So far, I think OF has been successfully in using their ToS to make the case that if it is any of those things, it is fraud or false advertising by the creator. But OF creators, even once you do the work to be able to sue them, are mostly not worth suing, and given the way chatters are more (though not uniquely) associated with creators being working with highly extractive agencies (who are nominally working for the creator, but functionally more like the reverse), that's probably particularly the case for those using chatters.

bawolff 7mo ago

I wonder to what extent the clients care. Either way its still paying for a fantasy.

PUSH_AX 7mo ago
if a person pays for a Nike product and receives a counterfeit, are we saying no harm no foul if they don’t realise?
- bawolff 7mo ago
  No, i'm not.
  - PUSH_AX 7mo ago
    Good. Your initial comment makes no sense.
    - bawolff 7mo ago
      I'm not retracting my original comment, i just don't think your analogy is related to what i said and in many ways is the opposite of what i said.
      - PUSH_AX 7mo ago
        If you don’t recognise the parallels then I don’t know what to say really. All the best.
        bawolff 7mo ago
        To use your own analogy, surely you must see there is a difference between someone attempting to purchase nike shoes and being tricked vs someone intentionally seeking out counterfeits (e.g. to get a deal) My comment is wondering to what extent the clients are "tricked" vs to what extent they know (or suspect) its not the real OF model and dont care as long as the fantasy is intact.
- overfeed 7mo ago
  Nike determines what counts as a Nike product; it they are selling it, it is not counterfeit; It may be poorly made or made in ways you didn't expect, but nor counterfeit.

iugtmkbdfil834 7mo ago

But then.. how is it any different from Amazon saying automated stores while a human is watching cameras or waymo having humans operate in some circumstances. If there are no rules, you can't expect corporates to govern themselves in a way that does not benefit them..

autoexec 7mo ago
People don't usually pay for automated stores or rides because of the automated aspect. They just want to get the items or get to their destination. I think waymo was mostly upfront that humans are working behind the scenes, but if amazon lied to investors and shareholders by claiming that their stores were automated when it was "Actually Indians" I think they could/should have been sued.
gruez 7mo ago
>But then.. how is it any different from Amazon saying automated stores while a human is watching cameras or waymo having humans operate in some circumstances. Did amazon/waymo actually claim they were 100% automated? Moreover is the fact that they're 100% automated a material fact to the consumer? The investors might have grounds to sue for securities fraud, but it's going to be much tougher for a consumer, when for all intents and purposes they got what they expected (ie. whatever they bought from the shop). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_fact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_fact
- abeppu 7mo ago
  > Moreover is the fact that they're 100% automated a material fact to the consumer? I do think that for a meaningful fraction of first time customers, the choice to try it is about the novelty of it being automated. In SF I do often see people explaining waymo to out of town visitors, and the uniqueness of "driverless" vs "remote controlled" is part of the appeal.
  - Ferret7446 7mo ago
    But that's not what they're paying for. You're hoping to get the automated experience but you aren't paying for the automated experience. This is like going to Hooters to buy a meal and then suing because the girl you wanted to see didn't serve you.

thedelanyo 7mo ago

[flagged]

whynotmaybe 7mo ago

Do we know if onlyfan is already training their own models with their user's content?

giantrobot 7mo ago
How could they not be? At $2 an hour they'd be leaving money on the table by not paying a tiny fraction of that for an LLM.
- thfuran 7mo ago
  I don't think it's the platform paying the workers. I think they're third parties hired by the posters. Of course, OnlyFans itself could theoretically create and offer a service to replace them, but Fraud As A Service doesn't actually seem all that reliable as a business model.
  - anticensor 7mo ago
    That service is already offered by Fanvue.
anticensor 7mo ago
They do, but not an AI chatter.They train a content moderation model.

V__ 7mo ago

There is probably some lingo somewhere clarifying that you pay for the "experience" of her and not for her in particular.

agreezy 7mo ago
This is everywhere not just OnlyFan, sadly

mingus88 7mo ago

It is fraud. However, one thing has become crystal clear lately is that laws are only as good as we have systems in place that are willing and able to enforce them. And further, scamming people in the context of sex has always been easy because of the shame in admitting you fell for it. Imagine filing a report that you spent thousands of dollars chatting with some random person, having the chat logs submitted as evidence, etc. it’s similar to why all types of sexual assault are rarely reported

ghurtado 7mo ago
> because of the shame in admitting you fell for it. I would argue that the reason has more to do with our utter inability to create common sense laws regarding anything "sex".
- jzb 7mo ago
  Which goes back to the shame thing, really. Few people are willing to stand up and advocate for common sense laws because they don’t want to be associated with anything regarding sex. Politicians, whom are not generally noted for being averse to hiring sex workers, sure as hell don’t want to be advocating for them for fear of losing elections.
  - aleph_minus_one 7mo ago
    > Politicians [...] don’t want to be advocating for them for fear of losing elections. This assumes that the politician plans and has a chance to become re-elected. If this is not the case, the arguments for not advocating for such laws become much less important for the respective politician.
    - monocasa 7mo ago
      A politician can rarely enact laws alone, and the above issues typically apply to enough politicians at a time to make having a quorum difficult.

shrubble 7mo ago

This was done by “mail order bride” companies like those in Russia and Ukraine, that charge per message or letter sent back and forth, using their platform that does not allow for contact information to be shared; you are not talking to Anastasia but “Hairy Boris”! Later scams evolved to use prerecorded video clips etc. Which I assume is next for OF also.

thebruce87m 7mo ago
What if I want to talk to Hairy Boris but I’m getting scammed by some blonde bombshell pretending to be him? I shudder at the thought.

SoftTalker 7mo ago

It's no more fraud than any other "fan club" where you got letters and personal autographs and such from the celebrity but didn't realize it was all done by a hired staff of employees. It's been a thing for decades.

zarzavat 7mo ago
You mean it's equally fraud as that. Fraud has a particular definition which does not permit "someone else is committing fraud and getting away with it" as a defense.
- LogicFailsMe 7mo ago
  Not to mention politicians begging for money and in return you get begged for more money by more politicians.

neya 7mo ago

It is fraud. But these parties are protected by OnlyFans themselves. Similar to how dating apps promote (and actually lot of them enforce) fake accounts with fake pictures because it boosts everything - engagement and revenue. So they always turn a blind eye. Last week, I used a dating app where they used a fake profile tailored specifically for me, using a married woman's photo. I deleted the app. Every app in this space is scummy and the people at the top running these are just trash. That's the real reason.

fHr 7mo ago

It is blatant fraud and onlyfans should be suable for this. Fuck that whole company and all their bs pr management workers doing nothing getting rich on regarded male beta simp money.

carlosjobim 7mo ago
First you could sue all the singers who have lip synced in a live performance and see how it goes.
- pjc50 7mo ago
  I'm reminded of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milli_Vanilli https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milli_Vanilli fiasco: nobody sued, but revealing they were lip syncing killed their career.
  - deafpolygon 7mo ago
    Girl, you know it's true
sofixa 7mo ago
But in this case its not OnlyFans doing the (potential?) fraud, it's the individual performers and potentially their agencies. OnlyFans just provide the platform and turn a blind eye.

enriquto 7mo ago

> It sounds like Onlyfans is exploiting workers and their own customers. But this is the basic principle of capitalism. The company exploits workers (in order to obtain a net benefit from their work), and exploits customers (by selling the lowest-quality, most expensive product it can manage to). Companies that don't behave like that get out-competed by companies that do. This dynamic is the root of our economic system, as was very clearly explained by Adam Smith and Karl Marx two centuries ago (in slightly different tones of voice). The particular case you mention is nothing special. The exact same thing happens for all the products that people buy. This is just the stable state of our (some would say "rotten", some would say "healthy") society.

sneak 7mo ago
It’s not exploitation unless the participants in the deal are being coerced. You can’t make a solid case for employees being coerced to work for an exploitative employer outside of company towns or non-functioning labor markets; neither of these apply to the Philippines. If the chatter thought the job was so bad, they can quit and get a different one. Millions of people make that choice, it is available to them. There is no requirement that they do this work; it is entirely voluntary. The people doing these jobs have determined that it is the best option for them, personally, or they wouldn’t be there. PS: $2-4/hr is a more than decent wage in the Philippines. Median income there is $2.11/hr, minimum wage is $1.36/hr.
- TheOtherHobbes 7mo ago
  The requirement is that they not starve, not be made homeless, and not be forced into even less appealing and/or more dangerous work. The coercion comes from the very limited choices they have to avoid that.
- enriquto 7mo ago
  > unless the participants in the deal are being coerced. Here's the nice thing about it: they are! If they don't work (for any of the equally exploitative companies in their country) they die.

superb_dev 7mo ago

I can’t believe that someone paying for this actually expects to chat with the model. Just think of the logistics, it would be impossible

roysting 7mo ago
[flagged]
zozbot234 7mo ago
> I can’t believe that someone paying for this actually expects to chat with the model. Just think of the logistics, it would be impossible It's not impossible, you can do it with a little bit of fine tuning starting from her history of chats on the platform, and having her set a custom user-level prompt where she lists her interests, hobbies and things she likes. Then give her auto-compacted daily or weekly summaries of the most compelling chats. It's a model either way, right?
wolvoleo 7mo ago
I have some models I really chat with, like outside of their performances. Not all day obviously and they often don't respond for days but that's ok. I know it's them because I can see them typing live sometimes and also some of them I know in person and they remember what I've said online.
bombcar 7mo ago
You’ve not even begun to scratch parasocial relationships- since there have been cases of murder, I think it’s safe to assume at least some think they’re really chatting with the model - and she loves them?
DANmode 7mo ago
The market is not you.

orthoxerox 7mo ago

On the one hand, yes, on the other hand, personal touch doesn't scale. Webcam models maintain a personal touch by broadcasting their interactions with those who tip, but OF models can't do that. They have two options when their customer base grows too large: Option one is to use these chatters. Option two is to chat only with those who pay extra or with no one at all.

thebunnymaster 7mo ago
[dead]
Dylan16807 7mo ago
If you can't scale part of your self-employment without scamming people, that's fine, don't scale that part. Being unable to sell 30 hours of work in a day is normal, not an excuse for fraud.
dragonwriter 7mo ago
As I understand, the norm (beyond very basic occasional things to whet appetites) is the first branch of Option 2, whether or not chatters are employed. The creator (or their agency) paying for chatters without it producing revenue doesn't make any more sense than the creator spending their own time doing it.

sequoia 7mo ago

Someone paid to have a fantasy of sex, and they got that fantasy. If they don't like it, they don't do it again, and this is true whether it's "the model" or someone else. If they do like it, what's the issue? This is like saying you paid for a celebrity plumber & a regular plumber did the work, but you're upset because you wanted the celebrity. "The job" got done one way or another. They're selling digital handjobs here, there's no need to be precious about it.

lich_king 7mo ago
> If they do like it, what's the issue? Are you serious? However goofy that sounds, they paid for a specific fantasy. They would not have paid if you advertised the service as "talk dirty with a random dude in India". If the reason they paid for this service is that they were promised a specific person, that's fraud. As simple as that. Your judgment about whether the services are equivalent doesn't matter. If I pay you for Gucci socks, and you intentionally send me cheaper HZBZZYXY socks from Amazon instead, that's fraud even if they're still socks.
- Lapsa 7mo ago
  Jamtarians pride themselves with such deeds
- overfeed 7mo ago
  > If I pay you for Gucci socks, and you intentionally send me cheaper HZBZZYXY socks The difference is t he product is 'blessed' by the official seller: Would you feel defrauded if Gucci sends you the Gucci-branded socks you ordered, but you discover later they were made by the HZBZZYXY factory in Guangdong rather than by an Italian master sock-craftsman?
  - BoingBoomTschak 7mo ago
    That question falls entirely under the legal concept of false advertising. Depends on what Gucci proclaimed.

jacquesm 7mo ago

You sound upset. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you%27re_a_dog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_...

deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]

9rx 7mo ago

Just wait until you find out that a MrBeast burger is not made by, or of!, the guy who plays MrBeast on TV either.

otterley 7mo ago
They’re not passing themselves off as MrBeast.
- 9rx 7mo ago
  So you understand that a MrBeast burger isn't made by, or from, the person known as MrBeast, but when one pays to join the MrBeast YouTube channel you are certain the comments from user MrBeast are made by the person known as MrBeast? What's the difference?
  - otterley 7mo ago
    Feels like you're making this more complicated than it needs to be. The elements of fraud are quite simple: 1. a false statement of material fact 2. knowledge that the statement is false 3. intent to induce reliance 4. justifiable reliance by the victim 5. resulting damages The "buying a burger from a MrBeast cafe" fails to meet element 1, because nobody at MrBeast burger is falsely claiming to be MrBeast himself. On the other hand, falsely passing oneself as a model in order to earn revenue for them meets elements 1, 2, and 3. Elements 4 and 5 will depend on whether the victim fell for the scheme.
    - 9rx 7mo ago
      > nobody at MrBeast burger is falsely claiming to be MrBeast himself. Nobody said that they were. You must have forgotten to read the thread. When 'MrBeast' comments on YouTube to those who pay for a subscription to his channel, it is claiming to be MrBeast, however. But is it him? You completely understand he doesn't have time to flip burgers, and thus would never expect him to, so why do you think he has time to chat to random internet customers?

matheusmoreira 7mo ago

It is fraud but nobody cares anymore. Laws only matter if you're defrauding rich corporations with pockets deep enough to actually pay lawyers to sue you over it.

wolvesechoes 7mo ago

[flagged]

tokyobreakfast 7mo ago

Prostitution is not an industry known for its ethics or integrity.

wolvoleo 7mo ago
That's only really in jurisdictions where it's illegal. It just comes with the criminal aspect. In Holland they even have a union called the red thread.
- freehorse 7mo ago
  It is also a case in jurisdictions where it is all legal, because to meet demand it becomes then more profitable to bring (illegally) trafficked women to meet it. In particular, netherlands appear to be one of the highest in trafficking inflows [0, Appendix B]. From [0]: > Our empirical analysis for a cross-section of up to 150 countries shows that the scale effect dominates the substitution effect. On average, countries where prostitution is legal experience larger reported human trafficking inflows. [0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X12001453 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X1...
- tokyobreakfast 7mo ago
  do they have a pussy ombudsman to investigate malfeasance and poor customer service?
  - cindyllm 7mo ago
    [dead]
  - jacquesm 7mo ago
    The chances of that happening are 0.0001% compared to the chances of the visitors misbehaving.
- blks 7mo ago
  Even in jurisdictions where it’s legal it’s still filled with exploitation - e.g. soliciting 18 year olds to do various sex work, like pornography, while they may not necessary understand what they are getting into and just chasing money they cannot get elsewhere. And how it’s correctly stated, trafficking is still a thing.

elorant 7mo ago

You’re not paying to chat. This isn’t therapy. You’re paying to see content and the chat is supposed to be complementary for support reasons.

kelseyfrog 7mo ago

It's probably buried in the ToS that who you're talking with is at the discretion of the hosting company. The only issue is that no one reads it.

freehorse 7mo ago

There have been lawsuits about it [0], however it seems most of them get dismissed by judges for one or another reason [1]. [0] https://www.courtwatch.news/p/onlyfans-sued-after-two-guys-realized-they-might-not-actually-be-talking-to-models https://www.courtwatch.news/p/onlyfans-sued-after-two-guys-r... [1] https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/court-throws-explosive-onlyfans-lawsuit-181531018.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/court-throws-explosive-o...

deleted 7mo ago

[deleted]

dbg31415 7mo ago

It might be fraud, but it’s hard to muster up sympathy for perverts on the internet. Imagine guys in their 50s who actually think an 18-year-old girl is talking to them. There are no innocent people on porn sites — just losers looking to exploit. Maybe it's just poetic justice that they're the ones getting exploited, no?

dbg31415 7mo ago

It might be fraud, but it’s hard to drum up sympathy for internet perverts. Imagine a guy in his 50s believing an 18-year-old with thousands of followers is personally texting him. It’s pure delusion - like going to a strip club and thinking the girls are actually into you. There are no innocent victims on these sites, just losers looking to exploit someone. Maybe them getting exploited instead is just poetic justice.

dzonga 7mo ago

these are all symptoms - the larger problem is there's a lot of lonely men out there - specially in the small towns. these people probably know they're not talking to the real model, but want someone to talk to. someone insert Blaise Pascal quote

PeterStuer 7mo ago

How many celebs, politicians, CEOs ... do you think manage their own socials?

whatsupdog 7mo ago
Nobody is paying to read their socials.

dragonwriter 7mo ago

> How is this not fraud, or at least false advertising? It may or may not be fraud or false advertising depending on the specific representations made in the particular case and the local fraud and false advertising statutes that apply in the case. So far, I think OF has been successfully in using their ToS to make the case that if it is any of those things, it is fraud or false advertising by the creator. But OF creators, even once you do the work to be able to sue them, are mostly not worth suing, and given the way chatters are more (though not uniquely) associated with creators being working with highly extractive agencies (who are nominally working for the creator, but functionally more like the reverse), that's probably particularly the case for those using chatters.