[sequoia]

Someone paid to have a fantasy of sex, and they got that fantasy. If they don't like it, they don't do it again, and this is true whether it's "the model" or someone else. If they do like it, what's the issue?

This is like saying you paid for a celebrity plumber & a regular plumber did the work, but you're upset because you wanted the celebrity. "The job" got done one way or another. They're selling digital handjobs here, there's no need to be precious about it.

[PUSH_AX]

That’s not what they paid for, they paid to speak to person x, not person y.

[ErroneousBosh]

Which makes me wonder why Person Y doesn't just spin up their own account, since they've already got warm leads.

[dragonwriter]

Because what Person Y is doing is no more the whole of the job than what Person X is doing, and OF can more easily detect (though its still far from perfect, I've heard) and aggressively cracks down on when the person doing Person X's job is not the person who legally owns the account.

[boxedemp]

They paid to interact with a computer, and they did. On the Internet nobody knows I'm a dog, and that's ok.

[PUSH_AX]

This is not what is advertised, and if it was there would be no money in it.

[boxedemp]

I've been alive for several decades and almost nothing I've gotten was exactly as advertised.

I'm not saying that's good, but it's consistent with reality.

[TurdF3rguson]

Consistent with what you think of as reality. For all you know, you're being Truman Show'ed.

[lich_king]

> If they do like it, what's the issue?

Are you serious? However goofy that sounds, they paid for a specific fantasy. They would not have paid if you advertised the service as "talk dirty with a random dude in India". If the reason they paid for this service is that they were promised a specific person, that's fraud. As simple as that.

Your judgment about whether the services are equivalent doesn't matter. If I pay you for Gucci socks, and you intentionally send me cheaper HZBZZYXY socks from Amazon instead, that's fraud even if they're still socks.

[overfeed]

> If I pay you for Gucci socks, and you intentionally send me cheaper HZBZZYXY socks

The difference is t he product is 'blessed' by the official seller: Would you feel defrauded if Gucci sends you the Gucci-branded socks you ordered, but you discover later they were made by the HZBZZYXY factory in Guangdong rather than by an Italian master sock-craftsman?

[BoingBoomTschak]

That question falls entirely under the legal concept of false advertising. Depends on what Gucci proclaimed.

[overfeed]

What do you think of fast-food chains using of idealized-product-shots for ads and menu pictures that look nothing like their actual product? The.markerting uses pictures of products that take hours to prepare by 'food stylists' in a specialist kitchen/studio[1], and are often not even edible, but look great on camera.

Apocryphally, motor oil is sometimes used as a maple-syrup stunt-double. Is that false advertising to you? If so, why would an OnlyFans model be more culpable than McDonalds or Wendy's?

1. https://youtu.be/FBP-DxfZCgo

[DANmode]

Good framing.

[Lapsa]

Jamtarians pride themselves with such deeds