Think You're Messaging an OnlyFans Star? You're Talking to These Guys
vice.com
vice.com
If subscribers know on the platform the models can be officially faking their conversations, what’s the point of paying to access the models on the platform? Right now it’s just on the model for tricking users like this, and they use these services at their own risk.
OF shipping AI to fake chats would break the trust of paying subscribers and I expect they’d get a lot of backlash over it.
OF could feasibly build a ChatGPT for their customers. Let people chat with literal AI-models and have the models reply with generated pictures. The tech is almost there, OF has the data. It's inevitable and it will end terrible.
OnlyFans could attempt to take this first party. With enough reference content a creator could generate believable AI images of themselves as well, and may eventually find themselves replaced by virtual models.
The film Her (2013) seems rather prescient now.
You can hire escorts avatars to be with you at underground parties.
They are scamming people on an online prostitution platform and this is ok?
I did not like Vice because of that kind of things. That "fresh" aspect on first glance but you realize later that those guys are not real journalists.
The normalization of only fans really started with language. Not commenting on whether it's good or bad. First we began calling it sex work and now we use euphemisms like "content creators". We never stop to question whether this is good and just girl boss praise women's "independence" these "creators" got and provide an indifferent shrug to the consumers. We lost our ability to apply any kind of moral judgement (possibly an overcorrection to an overly prude prior generation)
You saw the same thing with acceptance of gambling. It's not gambling, it's fantast football. Even the large players still have references to fantasy in their names. Similarly "drugs" became substances.
If you were to put someone from 20 years ago today he would be shocked as to how libertine our society has become.
Regardless, the article’s case pretty clear if you would read it. Mass job losses and from all the COVID fraud lead to folks getting money however possible.
Throw in years of the eduction system telling people a college degree in “whatever you want” is better than tradeschool and that service jobs are the worst thing to possibly end up in, and here we are. People with shattered compasses and mountains of debt trying to make a living in a world that will lie to your face and force you to like it.
It's no surprise people will seek any alternative and their motivations for doing so are not based on incorrect or fabricated data. Those jobs are truly miserable.
My brother hated college more than life itself. He always looked forward to summers where he’d work service more consistently. Fast-forward, he’s dropped out and now works in food services full time, never been happier.
It's not the work itself that is bad but the conditions of it. I loved cooking, I much prefer it to computer work. But allowances for health and family have to be carved out case-by-case depending on your relationship to your bosses.
This isn't necessary and we could change it. But we haven't, and so these jobs suck for reasons that have nothing to do with the work being done.
Yeah, what we're talking about is not that. Union work is an entirely different beast. I'm talking about people not knowing from one day to the next what their schedule is going to be, informing their supervisor well in advance when they're available to work and still having work scheduled when they're not able to work and then being threatened to be fired if they don't show up. Complete shit show.
Any cursory examination of other cultures would show it doesn’t have to be this way.
This is exactly the kind of prejudice I detest. Who are you to say that providing folks with good food and pleasant hospitality they want to keep coming back to and enjoying is somehow a psychologically draining career? But putting letters on screens that move boxes around and implement TCP/IP protocols is better?
In fact, in my experience the folks with the absolute most pride in their work and general positive sentiment about their role in the world have been restaurant/bar workers. It’s downright common in places like Spain/Italy/Japan, and I see it in some places in America too. But when you’ve preconditioned folks to believe they’re the scum of the earth, that’s what they’ll believe.
As it was I was working 60 hour weeks while my teeth were rotting out of my head and I hadn't had a sunday off to go to church in four years. Regardless of the pride I took in my work I think I'm well positioned to describe it as draining.
Plenty of software jobs might be called draining. For instance the contractors HN loves to pity. But I’m a contractor and I love it, more than my prior FAANG time even.
Still, should we expect public school teachers to deride the idea of being a software engineer because some instances of it are stressful?
Someone who has experience in those careers, not in Spain/Italy/Japan, but in America. And I've never heard on them being unionized in my particular corner of the country. The only place I've heard of it is in Las Vegas, and yes, the people in those jobs seem to do ok financially and do a good job.
In several of these crap employers I was forced to sit through their anti-union training which I have to was the best proof I ever encountered about how useful a union must be.
It's not just the crap pay, irregular hours and lack of health insurance either. The contempt from customers (I'm sure not you and not all of them) is palpable. Honestly, I'm becoming a bit upset just thinking about it now well over a decade since I last held down a retail counter or slung a burger and fries. I wish all the jobs were as nice as your brother's, but I assure you that the people who work them are unhappy in them for a reason.
I'd rather teach people how to consume alcohol responsibly than use the force of law to ban it outright and preach to you that it's for your own good. Ditto for many other vices. We're better off with a citizenry who's been taught self-control than living in a nanny state.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Everything is either allowed or disallowed. You can allow something but think it's unfortunate people choose to do those things.
You're looking at the world through the lens of moral failings rather than taking the hard look at what drives people to this behavior. Why do people self-medicate? Why are people behaving as though their lives were hopeless and full of despair? Why are so many people wanting to watch the world burn? There are answers to these questions, and it's not moral failings, at least not in the way one would think.
So why do they do that? Because society tells them it's liberating. Back to my comment it starts with language. Media reports on it in sanitized terms where you wouldn't know what it even is that's being sold.
People self medicare with weed because it's legal and now there's no taboo on using it even in dangerous situations like when you're driving. And since it's legal it's fine to be high all waking hours of the day. I've known people like this and honestly thinks it leads to psychosis
People gamble because it's now easier than ever. You can even get lottery tickets from an app, all run by the state with full knowledge it overwhelmingly hits poor people. It's really gross. Did we have to expand to mobile apps for lottery?
You are.
> what gives them the authority to judge?
Reason.
You judge according to your hierarchy of values. If you value life, you judge a murderer. If you value individual liberty and agency, you judge a rapist. If you value reason & logic, you judge those who dispense with it.
Try something contentious - e.g. homosexuality. Who has the authority to judge that?
While morals can be based on analytic philosophy (which I'm personally a fan of) the fact remains that analytic philosophy may still be susceptible to Gödel's incompleteness and moreover, not everybody agrees with this approach.
> Try something contentious - e.g. homosexuality. Who has the authority to judge that?
Again. YOU do. I'm not saying that I would agree with your individual judgement if you believed that homosexuality was "wrong." But YOU have the individual, personal, moral authority to choose your value system and to judge accordingly.
"Judge" is not a dirty word. You judge potential romantic partners when dating. You judge the place you want to work. You judge the types of products that you like to buy. You do all of this according to your personal values and your sense of reason.
Law and politics is a completely separate matter from "judging." Law does not exist to enforce some socially agreed upon set of moral values and I think that's what you're getting hung up. There, you and I likely find a lot of agreement. Since politics pertains to how people organize socially, there are a lot of valid questions as to what should or should not be allowed/prohibited by "law." And people will and often do bring morality into that discussion, but fundamentally it's different from "morality" since I can think that, for example, abusing heroin is immoral but still think it should be completely legal.
> While morals can be based on analytic philosophy (which I'm personally a fan of) the fact remains that analytic philosophy may still be susceptible to Gödel's incompleteness and moreover, not everybody agrees with this approach.
You lost me here. My personal world view is that morality is a requirement of a rational mind. It is a code of values that guides you, the individual, when faced with alternatives. Should I kill the person I don't like or should I try and live in peace with the world? Should I inject heroin tonight or go for a workout? Should I obtain my wealth through fraud and theft or should I try and exchange value for value?
I don't subscribe to "universal" or "collective" morality. People may subscribe to similar codes of values, but they do so individually and independently. That doesn't necessarily mean that morality is "subjective". Values are objective in the sense that you can measure their impact on a person's life. But we are all individuals. We need morality individually because we have reason, and therefore our individual code of morality derives from our application of reason (or lack thereof if you, for example, subscribe to the belief that homosexuality is immoral).
Or maybe "we" did apply a judgement and that judgement was "it's OK because of personal/individual freedom and personal/individual responsibility," or "it's OK because humans shouldn't be bred like animals and should be able to enjoy sex simply for pleasure."
Also sexually graphic art is not the same as prostitution where an actual sex act between a buyer and seller is involved. Falsely equating these is a bad faith argument.
Or put it another way, if you think everything is morally equal, would you be happy if your sister was on only fans? How about your daughter? Is this really the most someone can offer to society? Pictures of various body parts and a fake relationship with lonely men?
https://www.businessinsider.com/antidepressants-usage-quadru...
Because we're more broke?
> if you think everything is morally equal,
I don't. Deriving that from my previous statement is a non-sequitur.
> would you be happy if your sister was on only fans? How about your daughter?
What if your sister/daughter was forced to have children and be dependent in an abusive relationship? Would you be happy?
> Is this really the most someone can offer to society?
A) I don't accept that you or I can speak for the entirety of society. You may choose to ignore B because of this statement.
B) Society is "owed" what it puts into its people and not much more. Does a society that, for example, doesn't provide childcare, maternal leave, social safety net, deserve one's best?
C) This statement assumes that sex degrades oneself; I don't accept that as true nor support any ideology that does.
You say you're not commenting whether it's good or bad but your whole comment reads as you applying moral judgement.