|
|
|
|
|
by codetrotter
1716 days ago
|
|
> because paying for a movie is no different than paying for groceries Groceries are necessary for survival, and limited in quantity. Movies and streams are similar to each other because they are both video content. And as long as the creator of the stream or the company behind a movie get paid enough to make the content they could’ve received no more money and still gotten by fine. Streams are a little bit different from movies though because much of the audience is actively engaging in conversation with the creator or making requests to them etc. In that sense a stream has an aspect of limited supply to it that a movie does not. At some point the audience of a stream will be too big for the creator to be able to meaningfully interact with all of them, and at a point after that maybe even too big to be able to meaningfully interact with any of them. And so if you have a lot of people that want to interact with you it makes sense to prefer interacting with the ones paying you money, and to encourage them to do so. And beyond that, it also makes sense to offer “exclusive” content to people that pay. So OnlyFans makes sense too. What really has me upset though is thinking of the people that are on the audience, among whom some people have little money but also get so little attention IRL that they are paying someone who already has a lot just to interact with them and maybe even being deluded into thinking that they have some form of “real” relationship with them. That is very sad and something I don’t think has been studied enough and is not being talked about enough. |
|