If your father did it and you ended up joining for that reason… then maybe it wasn’t really effective?

I doubt Leto was the breaking point for why this Tron was unsuccessful, but it certainly didn’t help.

That is a wall of text sir.

I am aware of Loius Rossman and am a fan of his work. I am also aware of the arguments you are making and your Disney example.

But there is a difference between the theoretical and what happens in practice.

Name one major TV manufacturer that was sold off or went out of business and their TV was bricked because of it.

Do any of the TVs even force you to update if you don’t want to? I am not aware of any case but it’s possible. I’ve stopped updating my tv for over a year without issue.

You think all major corporations don’t care about image or branding and are only interested in the short term, but aside from forced ads none of the other issues came to fruition because customer feedback IS important to them. Find me a source of these issues related to Sony, Samsung, LG, or any other major TV brand.

Also your explanation of TV vs laptop… why is it that you are comparing an already set up laptop with saved credentials to an out of box experience on the TV? If I spent the initial time to setup the network, install a streaming app and log in once, I’m all set and no longer have to worry about connecting cables or another device.

The concern of whether the built in apps work well is valid, but both the app maker and manufacturer have a vested interest that it does.

For reference my LG TV is over 10 years old and running strong. It’s got Netflix Disney Amazon Plex and Jellyfin all working without issue. Aside from the ad that sometimes shows up when changing input, there is nothing to complain about. I have also connected a laptop for gaming and viewing files and have nothing against it, but a no laptop setup is absolutely better and it’s crazy to not at least acknowledge it.

Your comment represents the disconnect with most consumers and maybe it’s why you can’t see the reason most people don’t fight back against smart tvs.

First, just because a smart TV “can” be bricked by a manufacturer does not mean they all deliberately do so or use that as a means to extort you. If my tv bricked because of an update, and wasn’t remedied for free by the manufacturer, guess which maker I’m not buying from for my next tv? Not to mention the lawsuits.

Next, I’m struggling to figure how connecting a laptop to a tv is more convenient than a built in app. I have done every type of TV setup but no extra devices has always been a lot simpler than more devices.

I completely understand your concerns of privacy and a YouTube app that can’t block ads, but let’s not pretend that it’s all bad news.

I’m not following. People may prefer cheap to expensive but that does not mean they are desperate.

The option isn’t just cheap or expensive therapy. No therapy is as much an option if the therapy quality was 90s level machine chat bot.

Why is it exactly a problem that people have an extra avenue to better mental well being?

Believe it or not AI results are doing fine, which is why people use it.

Yes they will produce some funny/tragic results that are both memeable and newsworthy, but by and large they do what they are asked.

If the results were poor you wouldn’t have adoption and your AI problem is solved.

We have had chat bots since the late 90s. No one used them for therapy.

For some people, paying with their data is a lot cheaper than paying for therapy or religion. I do not fault them for this, especially if they are getting similar results.

Why? Is it somehow better to go to an actual church or pay someone to confide in?

People using technology to fill a need on the company’s funds is not the worst thing in the world.

It’s a balance between immersion and world building and tedium.

In silksong the run backs never seen so far that it is tedious. The save point is not right next to the boss fights but for the most part they aren’t egariously far. Plus the save points serve as rest spots for the multiple paths you take. A save point at every boss would be detrimental imo.

Yea that’s fair. We aren’t very kind to Russian and Chinese agents until maybe recently when you bought a few of our politicians.

If your method of wanting better from the Democrats is letting the Republicans keep power until everything is your ideal, you’re assumed to be an anti-American operative.

FTFY

That’s just a casino.

Degenerates would just add the biggest items to their cart and gamble for the chance at ‘free’ money

Question for you - what do you think produces the profit for IGN? Is it the quality of their content or just their branding?

Are they too big to fail? That no matter what content they put out it will continue to produce the same profit regardless of how good it is?

Do you believe that a contractor at lower salary and benefits armed with AI will be able to handle the 2-3x workload that current employees are doing at comparable competency?

Do you believe that IGN will also be backfill all these positions that suddenly opened up and provide training without suffering a noticeable dip in productivity?

If you believe all that then sure, these employees have little to no power. Let’s see if IGN shares this sentiment and, if they do, let’s see if it works out for them.

Not OP and mocking fascists is AOK in my book. But to OPs point it is quite an ignorant way to do it and would backfire.

Like this is clearly a filtered photo vs an unfiltered photo. If you showed this to a neutral or someone on the right and said, “haha see how MTG ruins her husband”, you would be giving them ammo to discredit you in future conversations because they know for a fact you are being dishonest here.

While your objectives are admirable, I can’t say I agree with the mindset.

You keep using that term that you’re “saving” these people. But what you’re really doing is trying to control these individuals by removing their options and removing their agency. You just don’t believe they can make their own choices or that their choice is ever really their own. Teenagers who already have a solid grasp of what OF is, then has up to 6 extra years or more of exposure and experience to the content creation sphere and then decide it is what they want to try? I’m not overly concerned about that.

We don’t have the “time” to save these individuals of today, but most of them don’t need your saving. Realistically you are talking about the subset of these individuals that are being exploited or forced into this against their will. But there is no magic button to exterminate exploitation completely. (Not saying people should not try) We are better served shaping the world in a way where those who choose to go into nontraditional work are not stigmatized or facing social consequences.

No one is suggesting a passive approach to fixing society. Getting involved locally. Voting. Protesting. These things are not passive. And yes we do have time. Who knows this conversation could agree very badly for one of us but history has shown life does on. Society does tend to grow more progressively even if growth is slow. But you know what? Growth and progress, by and large is not measured by the number of OF models we’re “saving”.

To your first and last point, I ask you this: do you believe the Patriarchal world we live in today is the same as the Patriarchal world from 100 years ago? 50 years ago? Even 25 years ago. I don’t believe so and that is due to the incremental progress we made.

Could it be better if we just tore it all down and installed some new system we don’t know about yet and have not agreed upon? Maybe. And it could also be much much worse. We have no way of knowing so while you are concerned about the end being near, you also correctly surmised there is no better known solution.

And yes I believe many enter as a way to make ends meet and not thinking they are going to be the next viral Model. So either they are delusional/unaware/see no other option.

And you realize this is not what the study is showing right? The study says that the teenagers have a “sophisticated” understanding of how OF works.

And yes I believe many enter as a way to make ends meet and not thinking they are going to be the next viral Model.

I mentioned this already but this does not square with your understanding that OF for most people do not pay enough to make ends meet. You can’t say there is a sizable number if OF models making a living and also acknowledge that point the top .5% or so actually make real money from the platform.

So for the vast majority of OF models, they would try it, find out it does not work for them, and exit. Their identity is mostly drowned out by the sheer numbers that exist. Is there still possible societal consequences should they get outed? Yes. BUT i argue that is more reason to change societal views through acceptance rather than promote existing Patriarchal standards in stopping them.

You ask a lot of questions regarding the data you neither have nor can correlate to “oppression”. You’re kind of just throwing it out there and saying it is.

One last point - the article says (emphasis by me)

"While some teens exposed discomfort with the sexual content associated with OnlyFans, others framed participation as a rational economic decision, especially for girls who might not pursue traditional education or employment

So the teens think it’s a viable economic plan for those who already were but planning to pursue traditional education or employment.

While it would obviously be better if those who are in this nontraditional bucket had even more options, i would prefer not to limit them more than they are already limited.

(Humanity has had some pretty low points recently but that was definitely after some highs. And as much as we would like it to be a straight shot up to utopia progress is generally more bumpy than that and it’s what makes achievements more satisfying. People probably felt the end of the world during WW2 but look how many highs came after)

I’m personally glad we are stepping back to a place of rational discussion. And to preface, i don’t mean for any criticism directed at you to be a personal attack but rather challenging the opinion you are holding.

To start off, yes I’ll agree that our society is designed and in service of the patriarchy. I wouldn’t agree to a blanket destruction of said system simply because you cannot guarantee any system that comes after it will be “better”. It’s easier (not that it is easy) and more pragmatic to change the parts we don’t like incrementally.

To that end, one of the ways to make OF modelling less destructive is to reprogram society to not shame women’s sexuality and to make it so the choice of OF modeling is not so consequential. This would be preferably than to remove a woman’s agency. Funny enough this would upend the patriarchy more than discourging women from expressing their sexuality. And please please note I am not suggesting you mean to literally take away women’s choice, nor am I suggesting teens be allowed to do this.

As for the choice itself, I think there are 2 other points.

1. it seems the study may be conflating teens saying they feel content creation is a viable future career to them saying they want to be OF models. In general content creators has been a top teen choice for a while now.

2. You should give the girls more credit as they seem to understand what OF modeling means. The entire article talks about how surprising it is that the teens understood in detail the aspects of OF. Here is an exerpt

Girls in particular recognized the tension between agency and coercion. Some said it was a personal choice, while others pointed out that financial need often makes the decision feel less than voluntary. A few even likened it to prostitution, questioning whether anyone truly chooses to sell intimate content if they are struggling economically. This tension echoed broader concerns in the literature about how the language of empowerment can mask deeper power imbalances.

Teens acknowledging that OF modeling is a viable career option does not necessarily mean they want to do it themselves.

Let me address one now point

Do you believe there would be more or less OF models if everyone’s basic needs were met?

This question suggests that OF models are being coerced or that it’s paying enough to cover basic needs.

Well i don’t believe you have the data on number of OF models being coerced into doing it and we do know and agree that 99% plus of OF models do not make much money, so it can’t be covering basic needs.

So from that, if we lived in a utopia with UBI and everyone could choose what they want to do, I don’t know for sure there would be a decrease in OF modeling. It would be the same as asking if I feel there would be a decrease in YouTube or twitch creators. There are a lot of content creators out there because there is a low barrier of entry. I imagine there will always be people wanting to try and eventually growing out of it. It’s not about basic needs. It’s a lottery ticket to economic mobility.

some of what you say may be true but it’s completely irrelevant to the number of OF models vs teachers.

some of what you are saying is neither true nor exists outside of your disney tinted view of the world.

Should a degree be less appealing to individuals on mass than showing your body online?

People who choose to show their body on onlyfans has no bearing on the appeal of a degree. Not only is your opinion prudish and outdated in our sex positive world, you are attempting to take away their agency through shame.

You have shown no proof that the same people aren’t interested in pursuing a degree or don’t have a degree. It’s not an either or.

There are a myriad of reasons for the teaching shortage and general state of education today. Wealth distribution should be better and the US needs to vastly improve their social safety nets.

None of that has to do with OnlyFans. Hell even if you magically fixed just about every one of those issues there would probably still be more OF models than teachers. And I’m sure you’d still find more ways to shout that society is dead.

A Degree should be valuable again. Not because it qualifies you for a job but it shows you put in work to learn something greater than yourself.

Btw, a degree is less valuable now because there are more of them. That’s a supply and demand problem.

A degree is only partially about “learning something greater than yourself”. That’s some romanticized version from books or movies or maybe for affluent white folks. No parents are putting their children in tens/hundreds of thousands in debt for the pursuit of greater learning.

It has always been about the return on investment from the degree in the way of better opportunities, with a splash of greater learning and finding yourself as an adult.

Anyway point being no need to blame OF for your cynical views of society.

I am aware. But it is not the norm. The point being is that OPs conclusion and logic train is deeply flawed. The numbers do not “prove” the downfall of society but rather simply that one “job” has a barrier to entry and the other does not.

Do OF models need a degree to start modeling?