11040 stories
·
22 followers

OnlyFans Turbocharged Sex Work. Now Its Founder Is Targeting the Whole Influencer Economy

1 Comment

All products featured on WIRED are independently selected by our editors. However, we may receive compensation from retailers and/or from purchases of products through these links.

When Tim Stokely officially stepped down as CEO of OnlyFans in 2021, three years after selling the company that he founded to billionaire computer programmer Leo Radvinsky, he took time off to figure out his next move, but “conversations with creators never really stopped,” he says.

By then, the creator-driven platform had become famous for mainstreaming influencer porn, transforming the sex worker economy into a robust business. As the pandemic forced everyone inside, rewiring our relationship to work and self-pleasure, OnlyFans took off.

Even though Stokely was no longer affiliated with the company, he still wanted to hear from creators. Some expressed frustrations that OnlyFans felt “limited” in what it offered—creators who sell sex are especially dependent on X to boost subscriptions on their OF pages—while others shared desires of wanting a new platform that was more “brand-friendly.”

Those discussions led to Subs, Stokely’s new everything-in-one creator platform that, to the untrained eye, looks like a repackaged version of OnlyFans, swapping its bland white-and-blue layout for a bolder interface and polished design.

Philosophically, Stokely says the two platforms are worlds apart. Subs, which launched in May, was built on core principles—“freedom,” “visibility,” and “more ways to earn”—grounded in a belief that creators should have “true ownership over their audience and growth.”

“Subs is about building real careers, not chasing trends,” Stokely says.

And I want to believe him, it’s just that everything Subs offers already exists in one format or another. I’m told they designed it to help creators who want to move from free to paid content build audiences more easily by simplifying the platform experience. I’m told there are all sorts of “original” elements—only “Shows,” its long-form video feature for “deep storytelling,” is basically YouTube, and the “Explore” feed, a mix of photos and video, is familiar to anyone hooked on the visual narcotic of Instagram’s grid. Subs, which Stokely says is all about providing “multiple, reliable income streams,” also provides one-on-one video calls—but so does Cameo.

Subs declined to share the number of current users on the platform.

I wouldn’t bet against Stokely just yet though—he’s got canny foresight for this sort of thing; before OnlyFans he ran Customs4U and GlamWorship, modestly successful softcore-cam sites. But it’s hard not to wonder if the era of Peak Influencer has already passed. It’s hard not to wonder if the market has gotten so crowded to the point that it’s near impossible for creators to gain genuine influence anymore. Fifty-seven percent of Gen Z say they want to be an influencer, but the profession has already seen a surplus of creators, with more than 50 million influencers globally. Can Subs cut through the noise and the increasing burnout felt by creators?

Stokely doesn’t seem phased by that risk. It’s about “sustainable growth rather than fleeting fame,” he says, noting that the creator economy is expected to double in size over the next handful of years. That much he is right about—globally, it’s projected to hit half a trillion dollars by 2027.

Like OnlyFans, Subs features both safe-for-work and adult content, of which creators take an 80 percent earnings cut. (To better create “a balanced ecosystem,” but also to keep users safe and comply with global regulations, Stokely makes clear that adult content is paywalled behind subscriptions and DMs). New personalized features, including collaborator revenue splits and referral earnings, do seem like a necessary improvement, in addition to its future AI offerings: auto-captioning, growth insights to help creators scale faster, and personalized content recommendations.

“We’re committed to using AI ethically,” he says, where AI tools help creators “enhance their creativity, not replace it.”

For as long as I have covered Stokely—since 2019, before OnlyFans became a cultural talking point—I got the sense that he wasn’t fully OK with OnlyFans being primarily viewed as an adult platform. It seemed like he wanted it to be more than that, but it never shook the stigma, and probably never will. It makes his gamble on Subs all the more compelling.

“Subs isn’t about one type of content, it’s about every creator’s potential,” he says when I ask if he wants the platform to be associated with adult content. I don’t completely buy his answer, but his use of descriptors during our correspondence—“brand-friendly,” “balanced ecosystem”—tell me everything I need to know.

What I don’t know is if any of this will work. The creator ecosystem today, which Stokely helped mold, is not the same one he entered in 2016, when OnlyFans launched and well before TikTok became the next frontier of cultural production for young creators. The ecosystem has grown into a monster with infinite heads. It’s saturated in creator apps that promote some version of what Subs is offering. Instagram has a tip jar. X users can subscribe to their favorite follows. Patreon remains a crowdfunding leader. Writers have Substack. Pornfluencers—the genre of content creators OnlyFans gave rise to—are flocking to new portals of desire everyday: Fansly, FanBase, Fanvue, FanCentro, basically anything with the word Fan attached to it.

That’s the game now. The internet reengineered everything into a commodity, and the rise of social media supercharged that reality. Platforms today are built on what economist Jeremy Rifkin calls “access relationships,” where “virtually all of our time is commodified” and “communications, communion, and commerce [are] indistinguishable,” he wrote in his 2001 book Age of Access. Subs is just one option among a million others in this era of the subscription ouroboros.

In April, another creator platform Stokely cofounded, called Zoop, along with a crypto foundation HBAR, put in a bid to buy TikTok’s US operations from its Chinese owner, ByteDance, but Stokely tells me he is now fully focused on Subs.

He declined to offer any additional details about the proposed deal.

Where Subs has a genuine chance of scale, of perhaps shifting the landscape like OnlyFans did in 2020, is by reintroducing a fabric of authenticity to online connection. Social media, for all its good, has also created all sorts of sticky parasocial relationships and anxieties. Brain rot is everywhere. Loneliness is on the rise. The different ways we connect and show up online are infused with the foul smell of artificiality, as AI ushers in a volatile new world. According to a report by Typeform, there is now a credibility epidemic among influencers; 33 percent have admitted to buying followers or engagement.

But it doesn’t have to be that way. If OnlyFans was about the illusion of access, Subs has the opportunity to help make the promises of our social media contract real again—whether it works or not has yet to be seen.

Read the whole story
freeAgent
1 day ago
reply
So...it's OnlyFans, but without the porn.
Los Angeles, CA
Share this story
Delete

Elon Musk sure does want everyone to think he’s leaving politics

1 Comment

For the past several months, it seemed like President Donald Trump and Elon Musk were inseparable. The tech billionaire and “First Buddy” championed Trump on his reelection campaign trail, slept at the White House, attended deal-making dinners at Mar-a-Lago, and chainsawed a giant hole in the government with firings and spending cuts through DOGE.

Now, Musk is saying he’s had a change of heart. On May 28th, Musk announced that he’s officially stepping away from DOGE as his “scheduled time as a Special Government Employee comes to an end.” And in the days leading up to this update, Musk has held a flurry of interviews in which he’s tried to convince his audience that he’s done with politics.

“I think I probably did spend a bit too much time on politics,” Musk said during an interview with Ars Technica. “It was just relative time allocation that probably was a little too high on the government side, and I’ve reduced that significantly in recent weeks.” For reasons we’ve explained, the idea he’s leaving politics is suspect — but he’s got good reasons to say he is.

Musk’s time as a special government employee always had a legal 130-day deadline that was up at the end of May. He isn’t known for strictly obeying laws, and at the height of his power at DOGE, it wasn’t clear if he would follow this one. But as the deadline neared, there were numerous signs Musk was wearing out his welcome in Washington. News outlets reported clashes with other Trump administration members, including an argument that saw Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent repeatedly shouting “Fuck you!” in the West Wing. After Trump announced sweeping tariffs and a trade war with China — both of which threatened Musk’s electric vehicle business — the billionaire retaliated in a public spat with trade advisor Peter Navarro.

“I must be super focused on X/xAI and Tesla.”

A rift between Trump and Musk opened up with the Republican-backed “Big Beautiful Bill,” which Musk dubbed a “massive spending bill” that “increases the budget deficit, not just decreases it, and undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing” in an interview with CBS. And in one more loss, Trump greenlit OpenAI’s plan to build data centers in Saudi Arabia, despite Musk’s attempts to “derail” the deal for not including xAI, according to a report by The Wall Street Journal.

Last month, the White House dismissed rumors that Musk’s departure from DOGE was imminent. “Elon Musk and President Trump have both publicly stated that Elon will depart from public service as a special government employee when his incredible work at DOGE is complete,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said at the time. Now, just weeks later, a source told Reuters that Musk didn’t have a conversation with Trump before he revealed that he’s leaving, and that “his departure was decided at a ‘senior staff level.’”

Arguably, the bigger issue is Musk’s shareholders getting nervous about his detachment from his companies, so as part of his alleged transition from government employee to just a regular billionaire, he’s started to reemphasize his commitment to his businesses.

Tesla is in trouble, with Musk’s involvement in the government leading to a sinking stock and making it a target for protests. It saw a massive dip in sales throughout Europe in particular. As part of efforts to regain favor among investors, Musk said last week that he’s committed to leading Tesla for the next five years. “It’s not a money thing,” Musk said during an interview with Bloomberg at the Qatar Economic Forum. “It’s a reasonable control thing, over the future of the company, especially if we’re building millions, potentially billions of humanoid robots.” Tesla is also gearing up to introduce its robotaxi service next month, according to Bloomberg, despite sharing little detail about the milestone.

Then there’s X, which Musk’s xAI purchased for $33 billion on paper in March. The platform has seen a big dip in European users and has been plagued by outages in recent weeks. “Back to spending 24/7 at work and sleeping in conference/server/factory rooms,” Musk wrote on X last week in response to a post about an outage on X. “I must be super focused on X/xAI and Tesla (plus Starship launch next week), as we have critical technologies rolling out.”

This week, Musk returned to Texas for SpaceX’s Starship launchsans MAGA hat. In interviews with Ars Technica, Musk talked up the company’s plans to bring humans to Mars and build a base on the Moon. “We should be going 1,000 times farther, and going to Mars,” Musk said. “And if we are gonna go to the Moon, I think we should do a Moon base, or something that’s the next level beyond Apollo.”

The Washington Post also caught up with Musk at SpaceX’s headquarters in Starbase, Texas, where he similarly reiterated the company’s big ambitions about getting to Mars. “SpaceX is sort of ultra hardcore,” Musk told the outlet. “But if we’re not ultra hardcore, how are we going to get to Mars? You’re not going to get to Mars in 40 hours a week.”

When talking about his time in DC, Musk pointed out the “uphill battle” he faced trying to get things done, and reflected on the negative sentiment surrounding DOGE’s nearly wholesale attempted destruction of several government agencies, including cuts to projects like Ebola prevention. “DOGE is just becoming the whipping boy for everything,” he told the Post. “So, like, something bad would happen anywhere, and we would get blamed for it even if we had nothing to do with it.”

Even while downplaying his political ambitions, though, Musk didn’t disavow them. He told the Post that he’s not completely done with DOGE, and that the agency will focus “a bit more like tackling projects with the highest gain for the pain, which still means a lot of good things in terms of reducing waste and fraud,” without mentioning what those were.

Musk may not be present at the White House or brushing shoulders with Trump on world tours, but his specter still looms over DC.

29 Comments / 29 New

Read the whole story
freeAgent
1 day ago
reply
I think people's problem is that Musk spent too much time on politics. Rather, it's that his time spent on politics centered around being as abrasive, arrogant, and simply mean as possible. Leaving or spending less time on politics at this point is going to change precisely zero people's opinions of him.
Los Angeles, CA
Share this story
Delete

Buddy, Can You Spare A Million Bucks?

1 Share

Here, just for historical purposes, is the federal bribery statute (18 U.S.C. §201(b)), a heart-warming relic of the days when accepting a cash payment in exchange for committing an official act was considered disqualifying for public officials - even/especially for Presidents:

"Whoever, being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:

(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act;

(B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or

(C) being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person; . . .

shall be fined under this title not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

Notoriously difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (though don't remind former Senator Bob Menendez of that!). I suppose that there are some readers who actually believe that Dear Leader's pardon of Paul Walczak was not "influenced" or "induced" by the $1,000,000 that his mother paid to Trump's PAC (MAGA, Inc.) a few weeks before the pardon was issued - that it simply reflects the soft spot in Dear Leader's heart for tax cheats who steal money from doctors and nurses (AKA "suckers") in order to buy yachts and other luxury goods.

I guess we'll never know for sure.  To the best of my knowledge, the White House has not issued any statement regarding the pardon.  And, of course, we'll never see Trump indicted for bribery, not just because the DOJ is not interested in pursuing charges against our D.L. or those who shower money upon him, but also because he is almost certainly acting within the presidential immunity announced last year in the [aptly-named] Trump v. United States case.

The opinion makes for interesting reading in light of this new grift Trump has concocted. As you no doubt recall, the Court found that there was a "presumptive immunity" from criminal prosecution for a President's "official acts" - acts within "the outer perimeter of his official responsibility." Such an immunity is "required to safeguard the independence and effective functioning of the Executive Branch, and to enable the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution."

"An official act is one taken by the President pursuant to constitutional and statutory authority to perform the functions of his office. Determining whether an action is covered by immunity thus begins with assessing the President's authority to take that action. . . .  In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President's motives."

"[C]ourts cannot examine the President's actions on subjects within his 'conclusive and preclusive' constitutional authority. It follows that an Act of  Congress—either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one—may not criminalize the President's actions within his exclusive constitutional power. Neither may the courts adjudicate a criminal prosecution that examines such Presidential actions. We thus conclude that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority."

And the pardon power, of course, is within the President's exclusive sphere of constitutional authority, given the express language in Article II of the Constitution that the President "shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States."

To the executive alone is intrusted the power of pardon, and the legislature cannot change the effect of such a pardon any more than the executive can change a law." The President's authority to pardon, in other words, is "conclusive and preclusive," "disabling the Congress from acting upon the subject."

I assume this means that our D.L. could set up a little pop-up stand near the White House, out in the open, and dispense pardons to anyone willing to pay the price he sets, and the only remedy available is impeachment.

It's a nice gig if you can get it, no?

Read the whole story
freeAgent
1 day ago
reply
Los Angeles, CA
Share this story
Delete

Federal District Court Issues Another Ruling Against Trump's IEEPA Tariffs

1 Share
Read the whole story
freeAgent
1 day ago
reply
Los Angeles, CA
Share this story
Delete

"Hypernormalization" explained

2 Shares
The term has been nicely explained in an Instagram video, and that explanation has been converted to text in a Guardian article this week:
“Hypernormalization” is a heady, $10 word, but it captures the weird, dire atmosphere of the US in 2025.

First articulated in 2005 by scholar Alexei Yurchak to describe the civilian experience in Soviet Russia, hypernormalization describes life in a society where two main things are happening.

The first is people seeing that governing systems and institutions are broken. And the second is that, for reasons including a lack of effective leadership and an inability to imagine how to disrupt the status quo, people carry on with their lives as normal despite systemic dysfunction – give or take a heavy load of fear, dread, denial and dissociation.

“What you are feeling is the disconnect between seeing that systems are failing, that things aren’t working … and yet the institutions and the people in power just are, like, ignoring it and pretending everything is going to go on the way that it has,” Harfoush says in her video.
This is exactly the feeling I have been experiencing for most of this calendar year.
Donald Trump is dismantling government checks and balances in an apparent advance toward a “unitary executive” doctrine that would grant him near-unlimited authority, driving the US toward autocracy. Billionaire tech moguls like Elon Musk are helping the government consolidate power and aggressively reduce the federal workforce. Institutions like the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration, which help keep Americans healthy and informed, are being haphazardly diminished.

Globally, once-in-a-lifetime climate disasters, war and the lingering trauma of Covid continue to unfold, while an explosion of generative AI threatens to destabilize how people think, make a living and relate to each other.

For many in the US, Trump 2.0 is having a devastating effect on daily life. For others, the routines of life continue, albeit threaded with mind-altering horrors: scrolling past an AI-generated cartoon of Ice officers arresting immigrants before dinner, or hearing about starving Palestinian families while on a school run.

Hypernormalization captures this juxtaposition of the dysfunctional and mundane.

“Donald Trump is not something new,” Curtis tells me, calling him “the final pantomime product” of the US government, where the powerful are abandoning any pretense of common, inclusive ideals and instead using their positions to settle scores, reward loyalty and hollow out institutions for personal or political gains.  Trump’s US is “just like Yeltsin in Russia in the 1990s – promising a new kind of democracy, but in reality allowing the oligarchs to loot and distort the society”, says Curtis...
My apologies to The Guardian for excerpting so much of their content for this post, but I feel this concept is important to understand, and I feel some relief in knowing I'm not alone:
Naming an experience can be a form of psychological relief. “The worst thing in the world is to feel that you’re the only one who feels this way and that you are going quietly mad and everyone else is in denial,” says Caroline Hickman, a psychotherapist and instructor at the University of Bath specializing in climate anxiety. “That terrifies people. It traumatizes people.”

People who feel the “wrongness” of current conditions acutely may be experiencing some depression and anxiety, but those feelings can be quite rational – not a symptom of poor mental health, alarmism or a lack of proper perspective, Hickman says.

“What we’re really scared of is that the people in power have not got our back and they don’t give a shit about whether we survive or not,” she says...

Marielle Greguski, 32, a New York City-based retail worker and content creator, posted about everyday life feeling “inconsequential” in the face of political crisis. Greguski says the outcome of the 2024 election reminded her that she lives in a “bubble” of progressive values, and that “there’s the other half of people that are not feeling the same energy and frustration and fear”...

When we feel powerless in the face of bigger problems, we “turn to the only thing that we do have the power over, to try and change for the better”, says Curtis – meaning, typically, ourselves. Anxiety and fear can trap us, leading us to spend more time trying to feel better in small, personal ways, like entertainment and self-care, and less time on activism and community engagement.
More at the link.  It's a real gem.  
Read the whole story
freeAgent
2 days ago
reply
Los Angeles, CA
mareino
7 days ago
reply
Washington, District of Columbia
Share this story
Delete

Organic Maps Forked Over Governance Concerns: CoMaps is Born

1 Share
Read the whole story
freeAgent
2 days ago
reply
Los Angeles, CA
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories