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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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?
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.
>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.
Do you have sources or evidence that this linear payout system can work? Any businesses, platforms, or countries that have successfully used this type of model?
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.
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.
There is not only one power distribution, there is a whole set of them.