While trivially true, this is extremely reductive. People don't attend basketball games, operas, or go eat at Michelin star restaurants because they're lonely. People donate thousands to streamers and models because they are.
Or because they like the entertainment? Some guy on twitch donated over $20k, over half of it for college students to do push-ups in exchange for free food (about the other half was tips to the workers of the streaming food truck [0]).
A happily married couple both watch a food streamer [1], they donated hundreds of dollar, probably over 1k.
Hell, I donated around $300 between the two mentioned streams, I’m happily married as well.
When people donate to FOSS authors, it’s because they want to support their work, but when they donate to streamers it’s because they are lonely?
Now certainly. There are those, and probably a lot more on streams featuring scantily clad women. But reducing it to that level is just wrong.
Yet there is an objective difference in everything we do. You've listed a few nuances yourself; somethings are better than others. The underlying psychological circumstances are also true: There is a better, healthier way to live, feel and interact and there are many pathological, harmful ways too.
I would approach it like this and ask: "Would you rather play a game with a group of awesome friends (as hard as it may seem to find such a group, and even if that requires some effort and personality development to make such friends), or watch that streamer?"
"Would you rather have a real relationship with another person (as discouraged by the idea you might be right now) than hang out in that chatroom and pay money to a stranger?"
I know very well that for me, jogging, or unwinding with a game is all right but not as good as sailing or mountaineering with a group of cool people or dancing with a skilled partner. Most things even have their place. But there is a real difference that can't be denied. We could even dissect the experience and find the rewarding or unrewarding elements: bonding with a group of people in nature and getting a varied excercise while doing it could rank very high (for many individuals).
If we agree on that, we can go on and see if some activities are bad for many/most people, and label them as such. A low-bandwith interaction with fake-emotion, a simple stimulation in a one-way relationship could then be categorized as Bad.
That's a long way to state the obvious but the sacred idea of the free will made it necessary for me to make this point :)
It seems you value a certain psychological state, so, good for you, but this psychological state is not necessarily sought by everyone, and claiming it's better seems a bit rude.
If I'm to play the devil's advocate, I could you're seeking social ephemeral experiences to keep you distracted because you're not able to achieve the better state of being satisfied on your own through the objectively better activity of...meditation ?
I think you can see how obnoxious this is to see your own activities denigrated. And really, I don't think meditating is better than playing a game or than watching a streamer. All of these activities can lead to pathological behaviours (with varied rates I suppose ?), and when they do not they all sound great and all have a purpose.
So, I wouldn't engage in classifying activities as good or bad, but I'd rather have psychological support available to all practicioners.
This line of thought is however used elsewhere by scammers ("the person bought it at that price so they must like it"), free market absolutists ("the market - the sum of supposedly infallible decisions - made me rich and made you poor") and leads to people playing World of Warcraft 24/7 ("it is my choice, how can you argue that"). Anecdotally I have received good advice from people and when I followed it, it changed things to the better.
So in my opinion, if you don't engage unhealthily in your hobby, there's really none that is better than an other. So, WoW, climbing, dancing, reading, commenting on HN, whatever is good for you, I don't think one is inherently better.
> free market absolutists ("the market - the sum of supposedly infallible decisions - made me rich and made you poor")
Whoa, hey... The market is supposed to be the infallible sum of individual decisions, not the other way around. :-D
Of course, this still ignores truisms like "the market can remain irrational longer than you can stay solvent", or the existing exploitation of reliably-bad decision makers such as "whales" in Las Vegas casinos or Zynga games, marketing's "Harbingers of Failure" segment, etc.
Speaking of being reductive...
Consider the possibility that people also do it because they enjoy the interaction they get out of it, however shallow and/or fleeting.
The same way some people pay top dollar for a "meet and greet" with rock stars or athletes before a show or game, where you get to shake hands, take selfies and trade platitudes with famous people and then they never see you or think of you again.
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.
I'm not saying loneliness is not a factor, but it's definitely not the only factor. Like everything else to do with human interactions, it's complicated.
Famous people aren't exempt from fostering parasocial relationships (see Taylor Swift's iPhone app), and Eminem famously wrote/performed "Stan" about a hypothetical overzealous fan that was in a parasocial relationship with him.
I don't think I'm being reductive when I say that I think most Onlyfans subscribers -- especially those that give significant percentages of their income to models for a modicum of attention -- are "stans."
the new name for this is SIMPs
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.
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.
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.
>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?
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-h...
>3. ENGAGE
>Importantly, as with your existing social platforms, make sure you engage and interact with your fans, as it’s a two way street. Using this to your advantage enables you to create a more personalised experience and strengthen the bond between you and your fans. OnlyFans private messaging facility puts your fans in direct contact with you, and you can ask what they would like to see. This way you can tailor your plan to give fans more of what they want. Asking fans what they most want will help you understand their preferences and you can build the most popular requests into your plan.
I don't think anything listed here is advice that is specific to Onlyfans. Engagement is generally good for all creators.
I have also supported numerous creators on Patreon, mostly podcasters. Not every creator on Patreon follows this advice. There are certainly some that setup a clear one way transactional relationship in which you donate money and they give you content. However I have subscribed to creators that prioritize interacting with their patrons. That has included live interactive patron-only streams, Q&As, as well as fielding requests for specific content. Patreon also does have private messaging, but I have never used that functionality before so I don't know all the details.
I don't get the impression that all engagement is meant to fool me into thinking that the creator is my friend. I don't think that necessarily would change if the content creators were taking off their clothes versus talking into a microphone. It is really all up to how the creator wants to handle their business. Some like Bella Thorne might do so unethically. That doesn't mean every creator will take that approach.
I'm afraid you're being disingenuous. Up to this point of the discussion, the whole argument was about how platforms such as OnlyFans and to a lesser extent Twitch monetize loneliness via parasocial relationships. Platforms such as Patreon were not included because they don't focus on monetizing parasocial relationships due to the non-interactive relationship of their content. Your moralist red herring intentionally ignores the entire argument and is uncalled for as a blatant attempt to poison the well.
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.
This is filling a need like meth cures boredom.
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.
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.
Uh, how is this different than loneliness?
And it feels good. I might be getting music or ML models or whatever out of it, but at the core, it feels like I've made a positive contribution. It's personal, and I can imagine its direct impact in the recipient's life.
In the case of art and music, there's also the touch of living vicariously through other creatives that are building a different skill set than I chose. I picked programming, and though it's too late to go back with all that I've got going on in my life, it's fun to imagine what could have been if I'd practiced sketching every day.
I don't know about Twitch and OnlyFans users, but I can totally imagine donating for motivations other than loneliness. Maybe it's validation. Maybe showing off. Or maybe they're simply saying "I like what you do, please keep it up." And maybe the donors are getting a fun in-game commentary or something else as an added bonus.
Don't decry it. I think these evolutions in patronage are interesting and exciting.
I recently supported the new Patreon page created by a podcast host who I have been listening to for over 10 years. He sent all his supporters a short personalized video, and watching that video gave me the feeling of an authentic personal connection. Of course there's no deception going on here, I do believe that he genuinely appreciates my (very small financial) support, but there's no expectation that we're now "actually friends" in the traditional sense (he has hundreds of supporters). But still, it's a nice feeling of personal connection, and it doesn't feel like an indictment of major social problems plaguing society (other than perhaps the obvious lockdown-associated reduction in human contact).
Of course, in my example there's nothing remotely flirtatious or sexual going on, which as I understand it is common on OnlyFans. Maybe that detail makes it completely unlike my example, but it really doesn't feel that different to me.
I think it's reductive to consider that people are only on OnlyFans because they're lonely. People frequented strip clubs forever but I don't think everyone at a Vegas strip club is there because they are lonely.
Strip clubs are social - you go to them with your friends. The performers are paid, of course, just like all professional entertainers.
Cam sites are different. Can you imagine going to a cam site for a bachelor party?
It’s not as far out as it sounds. I spent my bachelor party playing video games and watching Netflix.
There’s certainly some group socializing in adult media, but it’s vastly overshadowed by paradoxical group performers.
Strip clubs are notorious for monetizing parasocial behavior, being places where men literally throw money to buy some attention and are scolded if they ever think of approaching the same person in other contexts that don't involve monetization of that interaction.
Your model when thinking about this is to assume everyone thinks nude people are fungible, but people used to buy specific gossip magazines at the grocery store to see SPECIFIC celebrities caught in the nude. So this is not something new.
or they view it as another form of entertainment and want to support it.
If you don't think a big part of the appeal of sports fandom is artificial group connection of much the same type as the kinds of artificial individual connection some people seek through the entertainment you are denigrating, I think you are quite mistaken.
But, again just as for sports, just being entertained is a big part of this, too.
I never used OnlyFans, but from my point of view, if those using it are mostly lonely guys, then it does not sound that bad. Had they had girlfriends who would objected, I can see relationship issue there.
But other then that, lonely guy using strip porn made by someone who did porn voluntary does not strikes me as massive problem.