"The breakout success of OnlyFans is laudable, but should prompt some soul-searching in the power centers of Silicon Valley. Why did it take this long? Why would no one else have the courage to address sex work? Why does the same industry that exalts such morally ruinous firms as Palantir, Facebook and Palmer Lucky’s actual next-gen weapons startup get queasy about consenting adults wanting to see naked bodies?"
Probably for the same reasons there's no comments on this article.
The success of OnlyFans is usually presented as a liberating moment for sex-workers but it will almost inevitably decrease their average wages within a few years. Although in its defense, it does help some workers who would not previously have had access to these opportunities.
Less restrictive social mores will paradoxically destroy the main element that used to boost salaries to an enviable level compared to more mainstream professions. It's already the case as shown by Aella's research that the median revenue is very low, even taking into account workers who only post occasionally. You end up with a winner takes all market not too dissimilar to the music industry on streaming services. Instead of it being something that adventurous people do to finance a fun life in their early twenties, it's going to be just another McJob soon.
All of this being said, I still don't understand on an emotional level what could bring so many people to pay as much $15/month for such subscriptions. Judgmental as it sounds, it's hard for me not to see it as at least a little sad.
>Why did it take this long? Why would no one else have the courage to address sex work?
OnlyFans may be a watershed moment for porn business models, but it's not a watershed moment for attitudes about sex work like author tries to imply.
Using the internet, you could already get ad-supported porn, buy films, subscribe to porn libraries, tip while watching streams and pay for private streams. The step made by OnlyFans is bringing the Patreon model to porn. Even though OnlyFans' reputation is for porn, it's not exclusively a pornography service. And that's part of the problem for other tech companies. OnlyFans fits into the status quo where the product that elides porn is "generic" and the actually generic product is seen "for porn."
>Why does the same industry that exalts such morally ruinous firms as Palantir, Facebook and Palmer Lucky’s actual next-gen weapons startup get queasy about consenting adults wanting to see naked bodies?
The valley doesn't build for their morals, they build roughly for what they think the market will buy and the moral status quo in the U.S. is not the same as the author's. The US is an incredibly sex negative country. The U.S. is so sex negative that what passes for sex positivity is just a flavor of sex negativity patting itself on the back for budging an an inch or two in the last 20 years.
>And if they missed this market opportunity, think about how many more are out there - invisible only to the affluent men who run “tech.”
You really think men are uniquely blind to the market opportunity? That if they were allowed to express their own opinions rather than the sex negativity of society would choose for there to be less access to porn on the internet? Or that women in decision making positions aren't also beholden to the status quo?
I was delighted to see Aella being interviewed. She was the "gnome girl" from reddit that blew up with her artistic photos. She also makes hilarious videos:
Probably for the same reasons there's no comments on this article.