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.
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
> laws are only as good as we have systems in place that are willing and ABLE to enforce them.
The 'able' part is the critical insight. Laws are too often passed that really have no ability to be enforced, but end up adding bureaucratic processes that law abiding companies have to follow. This also implies that governments need to actively clean up existing laws, which almost never happens unless there is enough support to pass a new law to actively supplant the old one.
There is also that international problem. If an South American is frauded on an US American platform, by an east European using an African fake chatter: Which legislation, which court is applicable? Which oversight authority should handle this?
I don’t think this problem is that hard to solve, it just requires political will that doesn’t exist. The solution is to make it the platform’s problem. If the platform doesn’t want to deal with fraud, they don’t get to operate in that jurisdiction. Sue them into submission. If they don’t care about that geography, then there is now a gap in the market for a more local business to fill.
> I don’t think this problem is that hard to solve, it just requires political will that doesn’t exist
This is equivalent to saying "I don't think the problem is hard, it just requires an a simple solution that doesn't exist". Problems are hard problems specifically because simple easy solutions for them don't exist.
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.
> 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.
Is there anywhere with one term limits for law makers with no staggered terms? If every member of a parliament is yoloing it, I'm not aure if things would be better or worse.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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?
> 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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
>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).
> 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.
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.
Here's a post from this year where as part of their expansion to new cities they say " we continue our accelerated growth and welcome the first public riders into our _fully autonomous_ ride-hailing service in four new cities" (emphasis mine).
https://waymo.com/blog/#:~:text=Waymo%20will%20begin%20fully...
I haven't read the TOS in the app and I'm sure they didn't legally commit that no human will ever be involved even in unusual circumstances (which would probably be irresponsible). But they have been advertising on the basis of being autonomous, they're presenting that as part of their value prop to new users. Maybe it's up to lawyers to decide whether that's "material". But they are repeatedly, loudly, proudly advertising and marketing on the basis of it being fully autonomous.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
If you don’t work, you die, or at least suffer much worse quality of life, especially in poor countries or countries without a big social safety net.
There is a reason why in many places it’s considered highly unethical to pay people for organ, egg, blood donations, etc (besides just compensating lost wages/travel expenses).
Maybe you should take it up with your deity of choice. Capitalism didn't make humans need to eat to survive. Or perhaps you should try to bring back slavery, to make others work so you can eat without doing any work yourself. I admit it's an attractive proposition, but I'm not too fond of the impact on others since I'm a bit of a softie
The problem with Marxian exploitation is that a better system can provide you with more luxuries beyond basic needs.
If you're buying a fancy car and capitalism makes you pay 50% more for the car, calling it exploitation is silly when the communist part of Germany only offers a waiting list for a Trabant. You can't complain about being exploited over luxuries.
This leaves just housing, food, energy, education and healthcare. Other than energy, those things suck in the US, but they are very reasonably priced in Germany.
Marxian exploitation is also incompatible with economic equilibrium, which means that a better solution than communism is to introduce equilibrium into our economies and not just declare equilibrium to be automatic.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
> 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?
The issue here comes down to money and therefore reliance and damages. Nobody's paying "MrBeast" in response to his (or his delegates') YouTube comments. So there's no material reliance and no damages; the 4th and 5th elements above aren't satisfied.
On the other hand, people are paying money thinking that they're talking to the model herself. Thus the 4th and 5th elements are satisfied, in addition to the other three.
There's no need to interpret words through the arbitrary lens of silly feelings, yet here we are.
> Nobody's paying "MrBeast" in response to his (or his delegates') YouTube comments.
According to what? Is this something you made up?
If someone is willing to pay to talk to an internet figure, as you asserted they are, why not MrBeast? We can probably find agreement in MrBeast not being "herself". Is that the difference you find? The white knights only consider it fraud if the figure identifies as "her"?
> people are paying money thinking that they're talking to the model herself.
I'll have to accept your personal experience for what it is, but what in the marketing suggests the model is anything more than a brand? You even literally call it a model, not a person. That is quite telling that you understand the business at play, even if you want to pretend you don't for the sake of the fake argument.
We all know full well that MrBeast is a brand. Why are you treating MrsBeast differently?
> but the people commenting on YouTube aren't paying.
MrBeast is allegedly the highest paid YouTuber and yet, I guess, you think he works for free? While not exactly public information, industry analysts estimate that $5MM per year revenue is generated from direct fan funding to support his channel, so that, you know, "he" can do things write comments to the patrons.
> That's the name of the job.
Exactly. "Model" is used in recognition of the dehumanized object. In art, a human model is considered to be no different than a clay model. In fashion, the human model is considered to be no different than a clothes rack. The point of using the word is to separate the person from what the person is displaying. Otherwise you could simply say "person". "Model" is also used in this context because the concept is the same — the product isn't the person.
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?
