Yes, a girl doing OnlyFans is making money.

Turning that into a career seems like a moonshot, making it comparable to other "achieve celebrity" plans young adults may have (become a movie star, become a famous youtuber, become a famous rockstar, etc)

I think in general these aspirations shouldn't be shat on, but young adults with these aspirations should probably be gently guided in more realistic directions.

You dont have too, the time investment is minimal,many girls were already taking erotic pics anyway. If you are attractive you can ride that wave for several years and keep living your life normally.

I've noticed that many of these girls are college students and the money from their admirers is useful to buy clothes, gadgets and to take their boyfriends to fancy vacations.

So as long as you are aware this is a bubble you will be doing fine.

I don't know what you mean by 'you don't have to.' The claim above is that there is a difference between learning how to program and having an onlyfans account. Your response was to say the difference is that the latter makes money. My response to that is the former is more likely to turn it into a career. I don't see where compulsions come into it.

You dont need to invest time in onlyfans. It's free money basically. For all the other 'careers' , Youtubers, modelling, acting, singing, there is a huge opportunity cost because you have to invest a lot of time just to have a slim chance. If you are 20 yo attractive girl, you take some pics every other day, the less clothes the better and you may be raking money in the thousands by month. It's your choice what to do with the rest of your time.

Turning it into a career is difficult, not because it's hard to get into. Rather it's hard to stay there because your attractiveness is a finite resource that is running out eventually.

That could only do so because someone learned how to program in assembly even if not being payed for it. A good example of how making money not always equate to making value. There would be no Mark Zuckerberg without Rasmus Lerdorf. And if both were in the same room with me, it would be with Rasmus that i would like to talk to, because it doesnt matter that his net worth is peanuts compared to Zuckerberg, because from my perspective at least he created more value to society doing harder things than Zuckerberg.

With Tiktok, Youtube and the like, the comparison gets even worse when you compare the abyss of money making vs. value produced..

Isn’t Onlyfans a porn community?

I mean, isn't TikTok one too?

Definitely wouldn't let my kids anywhere near it.

I'd argue that "doing tiktok" is not creating but consuming an app. Similar as writing a reply in a chat app is not "creating literature" (generally) but merely consuming the features of that app.

Writing replies in a chat app is learning to type. Typing is a job skill, people used to pay for typing classes.

If, in the chat app, you create literature, you're creating literature. Some people are, most people aren't. If, on tiktok, you create interesting short films, you're creating interesting short films. Some people are, most people aren't.

To sum up, I agree with you that "doing tiktok" is like using a chat app, and agree with you that it's not necessarily educational. I disagree that it's necessarily not educational.