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
I would argue that the reason has more to do with our utter inability to create common sense laws regarding anything "sex".
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.
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.
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.
Maybe I can confiscate money paid for ad's or something, however that probably runs via a payment system outside my control.
So I have to punish my local companies advertising, but then it won't be my local branch of Coca-Cola advertising, but a foreign branch.
Enforcing this, without international cooperation, is tough. And currently international politics aren't in a cooperative phase for large parts.
Later scams evolved to use prerecorded video clips etc. Which I assume is next for OF also.
[0] https://www.courtwatch.news/p/onlyfans-sued-after-two-guys-r...
[1] https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/court-throws-explosive-o...
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.
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?
Apocryphally, motor oil is sometimes used as a maple-syrup stunt-double. Is that false advertising to you? If so, why would an OnlyFans model be more culpable than McDonalds or Wendy's?
I'm not saying that's good, but it's consistent with reality.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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/S0305750X1...
Option one is to use these chatters.
Option two is to chat only with those who pay extra or with no one at all.
Being unable to sell 30 hours of work in a day is normal, not an excuse for fraud.
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).
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.
Here's a waymo ad from a year ago. In like 10 seconds they repeat "it's driving itself" 3 times.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kJPDg207oc
Here's another one. The closing screen says "Autonomous rides 24/7". They talk about the robot
Here's a blogpost from 2021 in which they insist that their messaging from there forward will talk about "fully autonomous driving", and not merely self-driving. https://waymo.com/blog/2021/01/why-youll-hear-us-say-autonom...
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_...
these people probably know they're not talking to the real model, but want someone to talk to.
someone insert Blaise Pascal quote
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.
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.
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.
No argument against protections, though.
The coercion comes from the very limited choices they have to avoid that.
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).
The general claim that capitalistic societies exploit workers has famously been made many times before.
I know Projet de communauté philosophe is utopian, but I don't think that is the story it tells. Maybe something got lost in translation?
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.
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 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?
There's no need to be rude.
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?
> You even literally call it a model, not a person.
That's the name of the job. With this, the feelings remark, and half of your statements so far it's hard to believe you're not trolling.
Look at the account's comment history - I've had the misfortune of interacting with them, and they're not replying in good faith at all (IMO)
If there's a way for someone (with moderation powers) to look at the account to see if it is ever doing anything but trolling that would be good.
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.
In the model-customer dynamic, a customer is giving money to a model on a quid pro quo basis: the model -- or so the customer believes -- is promising the customer personal attention and customized content in exchange for money. No money, no attention.
In the MrBeast example, nobody is paying MrBeast specifically in exchange for his YouTube comments, which are public. Paying MrBeast is not a precondition for his engagement; he (or his agents) are responding spontaneously. His fans may be inspired to contribute to funds, although MrBeast gets a lot of money from ad revenue. But there's no quid pro quo arrangement here.
Exactly. I asked for details on exactly how the models are being marketed for that very reason. It was fully recognized be me that we cannot meaningfully discuss this without understanding the communication taking place. What I'm missing is the answer.
No doubt the other commenter realized that it is actually made clear to the buyer exactly what they are getting and that's why the response devolved into off-topic ad homiem and then disappearance. Funny how people react when their worldview crumbles, isn't it?
A little humility is, I think, helpful for everyone here. Let's be kind to one another.
Kindness is irrelevant, but lack of information did leave us without having learned anything. I suppose that's the game of trolling: To suck someone in thinking there is mutual desire to learn something and then leave them hanging in the end. But to want to control others is illogical, so that's life. On to the next learning chapter!
Well my disappearance is because you're a pain to talk to, not because you're crumbling any worldviews.
And the main person you're talking to didn't disappear at all.
I could go into how referring to a nonspecific person by their job title is not dehumanizing them the way you claim, but based on earlier comments you'd just say nuh-uh and it's just not worth it. And your unrelated comment saying nobody upvoted you, "that goes without saying", and acting like nobody uses the upvote button... that goes so far beyond wrong that if it's good faith your faith is very mistaken. Yes someone upvoted that comment. Yes people upvote. (For the record, the joke was that the reverse of "man exploits man" is also "man exploits man".)
Hey, honestly I'd love to refine my comments with an LLM to make them easier to read and follow, but that isn't allowed. I'd ask you to do it but you've already indicated that would be a pain, and I haven't asked as I already assumed the same. So, the best I can offer is my best-effort to contend with the language. I can empathize with you having to deal with my poor fluency, but English can't be everyone's native tongue, and you did understand that going into this. If it was that bothersome to you, why would you have replied at all? Actions speak louder than words.
> I could go into how referring to a nonspecific person by their job title is not dehumanizing them the way you claim
If you could, you would have already. Trying to tantalize us with the prospect of engaging conversation that will never happen is the epitome of bad faith participation. What are you trying to accomplish with that?
> and acting like nobody uses the upvote button...
I'm sure in the history of HN someone has pressed it accidentally, if that's what you mean? Nobody had pressed it on the specific comment you are referring to at the time of writing. And I am not sure why they would have. Was there something about that comment that would make you think someone would purposefully go out of their way press a button that does nothing for? I thought that would go without saying, but I will point out that it wasn't stated as an absolute. I did pose it as a question to open the opportunity for someone acting in good faith to provide an alternative perspective.
That said, we now have proof it was read and an alternative perspective never came, so, unless I was being trolled again, my assumption held up.
I don't have infinite time. It's such a basic concept and it's so hard to argue with someone so stubborn. I can't stop you from thinking you're right anyway, but someone walking away from an argument doesn't mean you out-logiced them.
And the problem isn't fluency.
> Was there something about that comment that would make you think someone would purposefully go out of their way press a button that does nothing for?
It's really simple. I downvoted it, and it still had a positive score. So someone had upvoted it.
> in the history of HN someone has pressed it accidentally
> it wasn't stated as an absolute
Even as a non-absolute, it's really off. A big fraction of comments on this site get upvotes. I'd bet money it's more than 25%.
If it requires infinite time to get into it, you can't get into it. Trying to tantalize us with the prospect of engaging conversation that will never happen is the epitome of bad faith participation. What are you trying to accomplish with that?
> I downvoted it, and it still had a positive score. So someone had upvoted it.
Again, why would someone upvote it? Where did you even get this idea that your vote counts? It is well documented across a number of moderator posts and elsewhere that HN's voting system isn't a simple 1:1 algorithm. Even one of the first few entires in the FAQ explains that not all votes count.
It remains that there is no logical explanation for as to why someone would read the comment you refer to and then press a button that does absolutely nothing. You claim to have pressed a button that does nothing and you still have been unable to explain why you would take time out of your day to do it. If true, presumably it was accidental. It goes without saying that nobody would read the comment and then (purposefully) press a button that does nothing, no?