upvote
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

reply
> 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.

reply
> because of the shame in admitting you fell for it.

I would argue that the reason has more to do with our utter inability to create common sense laws regarding anything "sex".

reply
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.
reply
> 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.

reply
A politician can rarely enact laws alone, and the above issues typically apply to enough politicians at a time to make having a quorum difficult.
reply
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.
reply
Don't you think it also comes down to "exploitation" and not shame alone?
reply
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.

reply
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.

reply
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.
reply
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.

reply
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
reply
There is probably some lingo somewhere clarifying that you pay for the "experience" of her and not for her in particular.
reply
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..
reply
>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).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_fact

reply
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.
reply
I wonder to what extent the clients care. Either way its still paying for a fantasy.
reply
Do we know if onlyfan is already training their own models with their user's content?
reply
How could they not be? At $2 an hour they'd be leaving money on the table by not paying a tiny fraction of that for an LLM.
reply
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.
reply
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.

reply
> 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.

reply
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 decent wage in the Philippines.

reply
> unless the participants in the deal are being coerced.

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.

reply
The requirement is that they not starve, not be made homeless, and not be forced into even less appealing and/or more dangerous work.

The coercion comes from the very limited choices they have to avoid that.

reply
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.
reply
That's why China ban this service outright? But hey, America is a democratic and freedom land.
reply