>People donate to streams to hear the streamer thank them or call them out by name or interact with them, in some manner, for some amount of time.

Let's get one more accusation of reductiveness in here.

You are still viewing it through a lens of parasocial behavior. The token thanks isn't the only motivating factor. People don't donate to NPR just to get tote bags. They donate because they recognize the content has both value and costs. Those donations are part of recognizing that value and supporting future content creation. The same applies to streaming. Some donations are a means of thanking the streamer and providing them with both a means and a motivation to continue making content.

The interactive nature of the content on a site like Twitch doesn't necessarily make it any different than non-interactive content you might find on a site like Patreon.

Sure, fair enough, my example was too narrow, and I guess you assumed I meant that was the _only_ reason they donate.

I was comparing the call-out to the shallow "direct" interaction of the meet-and-greet specifically.

But yes you're right, in the broader sense, people donate because they get value out of the content, and they want to support the creator.

Other parasocial factors may or may not be present as well.

> People don't donate to NPR just to get tote bags. [...] The interactive nature of the content on a site like Twitch doesn't necessarily make it any different than non-interactive content you might find on a site like Patreon.

Comparing someone like Pokimane or Amouranth to NPR is laughably disingenuous. There are amazing content creators out there (ranging from math, to dance, to music, to films, to politics) that don't exploit parasocial relationships with their audience. Onlyfans is, arguably, positioned to specifically exploit parasocial relationships.

I'm not comparing their content. I am comparing their business models. I don't see many differences between the business model of NPR and many Twitch streamers. They give their content away for free knowing most people will never pay for it, they ask for donations knowing only a small percentage would be willing to donate, and they give donators a few token gifts as a thank you.

You admit yourself there are "amazing content creators out there... that don't exploit parasocial relationships" so why are you judging everyone by the standards of the worst examples you can find? That is why you were also accused of being reductive.

> You admit yourself there are "amazing content creators out there... that don't exploit parasocial relationships" so why are you judging everyone by the standards of the worst examples you can find? That is why you were also accused of being reductive.

Because the article is about Onlyfans and Bella Thorne: a platform (and a creator) that leverages parasocial interaction. It's not like models make Onlyfans accounts to fund their science and math YouTube channels.

The conversation grew beyond talking specifically about Bella Thorne or Onlyfans in part becomes of comments like yours from a few posts back:

>People donate thousands to streamers and models because they are [lonely].

So once again you are making generalizations about this business model and the people who participate in it because of the worst examples you can find. Maybe that means Onlyfans and other similar services need more moderation, but it doesn't mean this business model is unethical or inherently preys on the lonely.

Also AFAIA the only real difference between Onlyfans and Patreon is that one allows adult content. I am having a hard time understanding why someone would be against one and not the other unless the reason was due to some ingrained prudishness. Is there any difference between the two that I am missing?

> Also AFAIA the only real difference between Onlyfans and Patreon is that one allows adult content. I am having a hard time understanding why someone would be against one and not the other unless the reason was due to some ingrained prudishness. Is there any difference between the two that I am missing?

Yeah, I guess I should've been more clear.

I don't think that the only difference between the two is that Onlyfans merely "allows adult content." Onlyfans is specifically aimed towards monetizing parasocial behavior (why you buy private messaging rights[1], etc.). Patreon is a way meant to support creators. I sub on Patreon to several creators, but there was no parasocial element: I didn't pretend to be someone's friend and no one sold me on that.

[1] https://blog.onlyfans.com/5-content-tips-to-keep-your-fans-h...

From that link:

>3. ENGAGE

>Importantly, as with your existing social platforms, make sure you engage and interact with your fans, as it’s a two way street. Using this to your advantage enables you to create a more personalised experience and strengthen the bond between you and your fans. OnlyFans private messaging facility puts your fans in direct contact with you, and you can ask what they would like to see. This way you can tailor your plan to give fans more of what they want. Asking fans what they most want will help you understand their preferences and you can build the most popular requests into your plan.

I don't think anything listed here is advice that is specific to Onlyfans. Engagement is generally good for all creators.

I have also supported numerous creators on Patreon, mostly podcasters. Not every creator on Patreon follows this advice. There are certainly some that setup a clear one way transactional relationship in which you donate money and they give you content. However I have subscribed to creators that prioritize interacting with their patrons. That has included live interactive patron-only streams, Q&As, as well as fielding requests for specific content. Patreon also does have private messaging, but I have never used that functionality before so I don't know all the details.

I don't get the impression that all engagement is meant to fool me into thinking that the creator is my friend. I don't think that necessarily would change if the content creators were taking off their clothes versus talking into a microphone. It is really all up to how the creator wants to handle their business. Some like Bella Thorne might do so unethically. That doesn't mean every creator will take that approach.

Let's not mince words: the fact that the platform itself supports features like "private messaging" -- when most creators are attractive women in their 20s and most subscribers are men in their 30s and 40s -- is kind of a red flag. The staunch libertarian in me says "who cares, let people do whatever" but I do think it's a net negative overall (not to mention quite sad).

> Also AFAIA the only real difference between Onlyfans and Patreon is that one allows adult content.

I'm afraid you're being disingenuous. Up to this point of the discussion, the whole argument was about how platforms such as OnlyFans and to a lesser extent Twitch monetize loneliness via parasocial relationships. Platforms such as Patreon were not included because they don't focus on monetizing parasocial relationships due to the non-interactive relationship of their content. Your moralist red herring intentionally ignores the entire argument and is uncalled for as a blatant attempt to poison the well.

I just want to say that this is a really fascinating discussion and I want to thank you both for this. You both have really opened my eyes to both sides of this argument.

As you've admitted yourself, this isn't the kind of thing you're into and because of that, I think you're running the risk of demonizing an industry simply because you cannot understand nor relate to it.

Titillation has always been profitable (eg why product advertisements feature attractive models) and it's not always about loneliness (though I'm not going to dispute that it sometimes is). Sometimes it's just about fun or primal desire. I know couples who have been to strip clubs and paid for dances -- happy couples who just enjoy the adult nature of it after a few beers. It's also entirely possible to lust after something without being lonely. Just as it is possible that some people have a comfortable income and feel like they want to pay for the content they consume -- whether that's literature, music, film and TV, or nude selfies. You might intellectualise about which form requires greater creative input but ultimately there's still someone putting themselves out there and trying to pay their bills.

I tend to look at this stuff like fast food. Some people like it, some people hate it. As long as you consume it in moderation -- which most people do -- then it has a right to coexist with fine dining restaurants.

> Onlyfans is, arguably, positioned to specifically exploit parasocial relationships.

i don't see anything wrong with that - it's a need that is being fullfilled. In a sense, it's the same category as prostitution, or gambling.

These are all terrible industries that are literally exploitative. Some in different directions.

This is filling a need like meth cures boredom.

I mean, with onlyfans you are paying for content like anything else, right? Or do you just pay for messaging access? I was under the impression that you were paying for photos and videos and such.

Yes, its pay for content.

> The same way some people pay top dollar for a "meet and greet" with rock stars or athletes before a show or game, where you get to shake hands, take selfies and trade platitudes with famous people and then they never see you or think of you again.

Famous people aren't exempt from fostering parasocial relationships (see Taylor Swift's iPhone app), and Eminem famously wrote/performed "Stan" about a hypothetical overzealous fan that was in a parasocial relationship with him.

I don't think I'm being reductive when I say that I think most Onlyfans subscribers -- especially those that give significant percentages of their income to models for a modicum of attention -- are "stans."

> are "stans"

the new name for this is SIMPs

> Consider the possibility that people also do it because they enjoy the interaction they get out of it, however shallow and/or fleeting.

Uh, how is this different than loneliness?

That's not remotely the same thing. I enjoy talking with other programmers, not because I'm lonely.

In some cases the interaction may have a sexual element that isn't available from friends in real life