[svnpenn]

> https://twitter.com/Aella_Girl/status/1335725267340251137

Even people in the top 10% are making basically nothing. This was taken two years ago, but I would suspect the current situation is the same or worse. I'm not sure how to fix this, but I think something should be done. People in the top 1% or 0.1% should make more per month than someone in the top 10%, but the difference shouldn't be this stark.

[cercatrova]

Why should the difference not be so stark? That's how the power law works, most people follow only a few accounts.

[epgui]

Because inequality beyond a certain excess makes a system unstable, and given the chance, even wealthy people would rather be wealthy in a stable world than an unstable world.

There is not only one power distribution, there is a whole set of them.

[roenxi]

Can you refer to any evidence that inequality makes systems unstable? There is no reason that I can think of for that. OnlyFans looks pretty stable, in fact. And It doesn't make sense that a political system gets unstable when some people get wealthy. Political systems fall apart when large numbers of people can't afford food (an issue which has nothing to do with equality).

[svnpenn]

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_them_eat_cake

[roenxi]

Inequality much more extreme than that was quite stable. Antoinette was only wealthy compared to people in the 1700s. She was basically an equal to the peasants wealth-wise compared to the inequality we've seen since after the industrial revolution.

We've probably got more poor people today than were alive then in absolute numbers, and our wealthy are orders of magnitude more wealthy. And the situation is much more stable.

[Rury]

Except that if food is plentiful, but not everyone has equal access to food, then it has everything to do with equality.

Actually, many wars and rebellions in history have been due to some kind of inequality, whether perceived or real, when individuals or groups were motivated to fight to seek redress. And wars are very much unstable.

[ad404b8a372f2b9]

I don't think it's stark. That's how the entertainment business naturally works. Footballers, youtubers, actors, etc...

Onlyfans has a very low barrier to entry and being better than a 100 other people isn't all that hard, assuming you have the body for it and the marketing chops.

I don't understand why you'd want a company doing the government's job, that's what taxes are for.

[epgui]

Did you comment on the right thing? I don’t understand how that relates to what I wrote.

[svnpenn]

> That's how the power law works

who says that the payout distribution has to follow the power law? And even if it does naturally, OnlyFans doesn't have to just let it happen. They could take a bigger cut from the larger accounts, and distribute it such that the payouts are more linear.

[oarabbus_]

>who says that the payout distribution has to follow the power law?

The payout distribution is proportional to the number of subscribers, which follows a power law.

>And even if it does naturally, OnlyFans doesn't have to just let it happen. They could take a bigger cut from the larger accounts, and distribute it such that the payouts are more linear.

How is taking a larger relative cut from the content creators bringing in the most traffic a good (much less optimal) business decision?

[srpen6]

If you're a new creator, and you look at this:

https://twitter.com/Aella_Girl/status/1335725267340251137

are you really going to want to start an account on that site? Your comment seems to align with typical capitalist motives: focus on short term gains, ignore everything else.

[oarabbus_]

>are you really going to want to start an account on that site?

If I thought it would benefit me and was worth my time, then yes? Is the implication one shouldn't try to earn extra income because someone else earns more?

>Your comment seems to align with typical capitalist motives: focus on short term gains, ignore everything else.

That's somewhat of an ad hominem. Anyways I'm all ears if you have a superior evidence-based economic model, instead of selling utopia.

[srpen6]

> Anyways I'm all ears if you have a superior evidence-based economic model

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32454155

[svnt]

If they do this, won’t they just fracture and drive the larger accounts elsewhere?

[svnpenn]

If every single user wants to be a soulless robot (pure capitalism), then yes. However if the userbase understands that larger accounts will be subject to larger fees, in order to support smaller accounts, then I would like to think at least some users would support that. Not everything in life has to be decided on a purely selfish basis.

[the_sleaze_]

So OnlyFans should pay people to post nudes ? (Rather than providing a place to post pictures and charge other people for them, in case you missed it)

I see this same argument made about Tinder, from guys who can't get laid.

You realize it's just a platform don't you ? Those are real human beings on the other side of that screen. OnlyFans can't choose for the humans on the platform.

[peyton]

Hang on. Capitalism means private ownership of the means of production. It sounds like you are talking about choices made by consumers.

Communist systems have consumers who make choices, too. Soviet citizens were perfectly free to choose which goods to queue up for.

[metadat]

Do YouTube, Insta, and TikTok also have similar distributions?

Maybe slightly less skewed but these sorts of networks seem to promote a winner-takes-all situation for each differentiated subsegment.