A bit tangential, but there is some serious cognitive dissonance here on HN (and more broadly in the tech world in general). When Apple/Google does this -- facilitates some kind of arguably degenerate behavior -- it's "evil." But when OnlyFans does it -- sex addicts, lonely guys, social weirdos that need friends collectively spend millions of dollars on parasocial fake OnlyFans relationships -- this "empowers sex workers."
Although it may seem counter-intuitive, the fact that the behavior on OnlyFans is so transparently "degenerate" makes it somewhat immune to that sort of criticism. Everyone knows what people go there for. The problem with Apple is that it holds up the AppStore as a pinnacle of morality (many of their AppStore rules are specifically around creating the perception of a moral store, such as no porn), and Apple the company itself portrays itself as a moral company, but then at the end of the day they are making the majority of the AppStore's money on a vice like any other (often times on children, as many of these games are geared towards that audience). A candy store that secretly sells cigarettes will always receive more criticism than a bar.
> A candy store that secretly sells cigarettes will always receive more criticism than a bar
You make a great point that I didn't really think of! Apple definitely tries to massage their optics. Could also be why Apple's store is also more criticized than Google's, even though there's a lot more garbage on the Play Store.
The HN umbrage also seems to stem from the fact that Apple uses those optics to justify their monopoly over the App Store.
We need absolute control over our platform -> so that we can control the user experience -> so that we can make the iPhone ecosystem a more private, secure, safe, high quality place
If it turns out the reason they need absolute control is so that Apple can milk whales in the same way Zynga did... well, IMHO people are entitled to call hypocrite angrily.
I personally think the fact that Apple built their platform literally from the ground up is more than sufficient justification for them to maintain as much control over it as they please. Shouldn't we all just say "Hey, thanks Apple for advancing the state of the art so tremendously far" and leave it there?
Apple seems to disagree strongly with this position when it comes to paying royalties for patents on components they rely on from other companies in the iPhone (that’s supposedly built from the ground up). I’m not sure why no one ever thought to tell Apple that they should just thank these companies for inventing the critical radio technologies that their entire platform rests on and pay them whatever these companies think is appropriate.
It’s so fascinating how other people’s inventions are “obvious” and not worthy of exorbitant fees, while our own inventions are unique and clearly deserve special protections.
No? Software platforms are always going to lead to a few competitors at best. It's a natural monopoly scenario and smartphones are pretty much a saturated market at this point. There really isn't much room for new competitors and the barriers are extremely high. Why should Apple be able to abuse consumers and devs?
There's plenty of room for new competitors who can properly innovate on the platform, much in the same way that there was plenty of room for Apple when they brought out the iPhone amid Blackberries. Anyone who can do the same should be promptly thanked and not further interfered with. Or do you think we have nothing to be grateful for?
It seems like you're saying there is no more room for innovation/paradigm shifts in handheld computing. Do you really think that's true? Phones will be more or less the same as they are now forever?
I think there's a ton of room for innovation/paradigm shifts in handheld computing.
I think that very few of them are significant enough to flood over the moat Apple and Google have built.
Among those? Screen-less mobile computing (glasses/HUD) and true conversational AI agents.
But the rub is that (particularly within the Apple ecosystem), a competitor has to not just be better (on day 1, vs the 14+ years of iPlatform evolution), but better enough that people are willing to jettison the entire Apple platform for a competitor.
Which means Apple can release later, with less quality, and still retain most of their users. That's the evil genius of pivoting to a platform / services company.
Google to some degree, albeit to a lesser extent, since their services aren't as tightly coupled to first party hardware.
Lets take a step up the value chain: Qualcomm also literally built their dominant position in 3G/4G/5G radios from the ground up. Is that more than sufficient justification for them maintaining as much control as they please? Because I remember Apple being pretty peeved about having to pay a % rake to Qualcomm, complaining that it was unfair.
You could repeat that for any product that has a dominant player somewhere up it's value chain.
If that was the world we wanted, then we all would have cheered as Microsoft steamrolled over Apple in the 90s, and we all get our software from the Microsoft Store today.
Large, wealthy companies and rich investors also exist on the market. They routinely fund innovative ideas that have the potential to disrupt established players. Absent any government interference, how long do you think Google or Apple will remain household names? 10 more years? 40? 100?
I don’t think so. I’ve talked to people who use onlyfans and most are truly delusional. In that they think the site runner cares about them and responds just to them. It’s almost harder than physics sex work because few people think the prostitute cares about them.
I had people swear that when someone wished them happy birthday, they cared because “they didn’t have to do that.”
I don’t think so. They are friends who I play games with and know socially. None of them have significant others, but seem to have non-sexual friends and they aren’t particularly gullible.
It's both, of course - the app stores empower developers, OnlyFans empowers sex workers, both take advantage of a small subset of consumers. Just like there are whales playing Genshin Impact, with a whole lot of people paying nothing/a tiny amount, there are lots of people ogling Amouranth for free on Twitch/youtube/whatever, with a tiny percentage spending way too much on OnlyFans.
It's almost as if one of those is a relatively small platform whos creators are almost exclusively young women, and the others are two of the largest, richest conglomerates in the world, who's creators are software development houses, (software development is a well-paying career) and that there's some sort of difference between the two groups.
Id's say "degenerate" is a catch-all for any activity which produces a supernormal stimulus, far in excess of what our Neolithic biology would be prepared for. Excess food, drugs, sexual novelty, and gambling all fall into this category.
You could certainly describe excess consumption of food, drugs, and/or sexual novelty as degenerate behavior. But GP appears to simply be referring to either consumption of or payment for pornography as a degenerate activity.
TBF, I've heard opinions all over the spectrum for OF. Many supportive, many not so much. Sex work is pretty much as controversial as usual.
Also, the idea of OF isn't that one dude spends thouands to a million dollar coporation, it's that thousands, maybe millions, spend like $10 to see curated boobs, which mostly goes to a single creator (at most. a dozen people managing their social media).
I'm not a vehemently against mobile games as many parts of the internet, but it is a different dynamic altogether.
Right but they depend on their degenerate “whales” just like anyone. There’s a big difference between going to the strip club a couple times a year with your buddies and being the guy who shows up at 11am on Tuesday with his paycheck but the strip club is happy to take all of the addict’s money.
I guess I need more data before fully forming an opinion then. I don't care about whales who intentionally seek out certain things to blow all their money. My concern is folks getting tricked into those situations via manipulative techniques.
I don't know precisely, but maybe we can start with building entire research teams who specialize in brain chemistry to have them create complicated engagement strategies which are inserted into "free" apps targeted at kids.
The difference is who this money goes to. In the gambling/iOS whales scenario many people are paying one big mega Corp. At least the social weirdos are paying the content creator directly.
I think you might be under the influence of a biased set of observations. Most average Americans do not hold women who show their boobs on the Internet in high regard, and use words significantly more coarse than “sex workers” to describe them.
But it’s just a subset of course of the bigger problem of the “Twitter take” often being light years away from the “average take.”
Lots of different people on HN, I don’t know that the same people have both those beliefs, it could just be the people with the strongest beliefs express those on each topic
> sex addicts, lonely guys, social weirdos that need friends collectively spend millions of dollars on parasocial fake OnlyFans relationships
Wow this an extremely hostile take on OF. What a vapid, overly opinionated and negative view of sexuality. Do you really think that P0rn is used for lonely social weirdos that need friends? Is that a genuine take on the purpose?
There's dozens of studies on parasocial relationships and how unhealthy they can be[1]; dozens of studies on how heavy porn consumption lowers libido and is overall not great for you[2]; and dozens of surveys on how my generation (millenials) and younger (zoomers) are more lonely, having less sex, having less friends, and less happy than previous generations.
> and dozens of surveys on how my generation (millenials) and younger (zoomers) are more lonely, having less sex, having less friends, and less happy than previous generations
There is no causation link here.
There are plenty of other massive social upheavals going on that are likely tied into this. The pandemic. Political acrimony. Impending impact of climate change. Helicopter parenting. Economic difficulties and uncertainty for younger generations. Facebook and other social media. Celebrity obsession. Abuse of addictive patterns in gaming apps.
We’ve created a world where people’s real life prospects are dwindling and yet there’s cheap, easy, and unlimited access to virtual dopamine generators. While porn is certainly a contributor, I don’t see any evidence that it’s an outsized one or that it deserves to be singled out from the myriad ways we’ve ruined things for future generations.
Also and more directly to the point, GP was addressing GGP categorizing porn consumers as “sex addicts, lonely guys, social weirdos”. The vast majority of the western world—including women—consume some amount of pornography. They just do it overwhelmingly in private, which is why such a stigma exists. Paying for it is not necessarily indicative of it being a problem for these people, in the same way that paying for music or other media isn’t. It’s just a changing of the norm to one that is frankly an extreme improvement for the women who do this as a profession.
You'd have to eliminate all media to eliminate parasocial relationships, not sure what that has to so with porn. The most intense parasocial relationships are probably with politicians and celebrities, not porn stars.
That second link discusses correlations and calls for further study which you've translated to "porn causes Millennial's problems" in your summary, which is not a reasonable takeaway.
People with healthy relationships and healthy bodies are almost certainly going to have less time for porn, for one thing. It's hard to put in porn viewing hours if you are hanging out with platonic friends or going for a walk with your crush.
Well you said people are "lonely guys, social weirdos" for engaging in this activity, and then there are studies saying society as a whole has less physical intimacy this generation than any other.
It may not be intentional, but it is indirectly saying that these activities are major contributors
A bit tangential, but there is some serious cognitive dissonance here on HN (and more broadly in the tech world in general). When Apple/Google does this -- facilitates some kind of arguably degenerate behavior -- it's "evil." But when OnlyFans does it -- sex addicts, lonely guys, social weirdos that need friends collectively spend millions of dollars on parasocial fake OnlyFans relationships -- this "empowers sex workers."