Bella Thorne, OnlyFans and the battle over monetising content
For years, I was profoundly puzzled by people that are willing to give hundreds -- if not thousands -- of dollars to (mostly women) they'll never meet for what's basically freely available offline. I saw a very interesting mini-documentary on YouTube[0] not too long ago that kind of opened my eyes. The idea here is that places like Onlyfans, and to a lesser extent Twitch, monetize loneliness via parasocial relationships[1]. This is <i>fundamentally</i> different than being a fan of, say, an actress like Emma Stone, or an athlete like LeBron James.<p>Viewers (the subject) actually <i>believe</i> they have a relationship with the object (be they a pro gamer or scantily-clad model). To most well-adjusted folks with a healthy social circle, this seems kind of nuts, but parasocial relationships have a long and sordid history -- starting with the invention of the "fireside chat" on radio. Loneliness is a powerful motivator and the psychology here is profoundly interesting. At the end of the day, I'd say places like Onlyfans end up being net negatives for both the models as well as the fans. It's a bit sick that the internet -- the very thing which was supposed to bring people <i>together</i> -- ends up cannibalizing its own.<p>[0] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djMojvschs0" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djMojvschs0</a><p>[1] <a href="https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100305809" rel="nofollow">https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20...</a>