> The O-1 category includes the O-1A, which is designated for individuals with extraordinary ability in the sciences, education, business or athletics and the O-1B, reserved for those with “extraordinary ability or achievement”.
Then later it says
> The O-1B visa, once reserved for Hollywood titans and superstar musicians, has evolved over the years.
I understand those two aren't necessarily contradictory, but the wording of the first sentence paints a very different mental picture than the second one (at least it did for me), especially since they throw in the O-1A and then almost exclusively talk about people applying for the O-1B after that.
Personally, I don't want the US choosing to give visas to influencers over scientists, but if this visa was already being heavily used to bring in actors, musicians, and athletes I don't see what the hubbub is about. I don't use TikTok or OnlyFans and I don't find e-sports entertaining, but I have a hard time arguing that a screen actor, Victoria's Secret model, or soccer player should be worthy of a visa and a social media star, OnlyFans model, or a professional Counter Strike player shouldn't is not. It's all just entertainment.
For all other candidates, at least three of the following criteria must be met in order to qualify for the O1B visa:
Having been or will be performing a lead or starring role in productions or events which have a distinguished national or international reputation (as evidenced by critical reviews, advertisements, press releases, publications contracts, or endorsements)
Critical reviews or other published material in professional or major trade publications or in the major media by or about the applicant which show that the applicant has achieved national or international recognition or achievements
Evidence of performance in a lead, starring or critical role for organizations or establishments with distinguished reputations
Evidence of a record of major commercial or critically acclaimed successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales
Evidence of significant recognition for achievements from organizations, government agencies, or other recognized experts in the field
Evidence of having commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services in relation to others
Other comparable evidence (This category is not available for those in the motion picture industry)
For traditional arts, you've gotta be good.
For an influencer... some number of anonymous followers?
There are certainly some that would qualify... but it they should be held to the same standards as others.
There's a boy band, Boy Throb who specifically leveraged visa application in their recent content, and their immigration attorney advised the visa would be approved when they got 1,000,000 followers. They filmed themselves singing and dancing outside the US Immigration office to help one of their members applications.
Their visa application content is rather silly/absurd:
A lot of youtube influencers are damn good at entertainment though, and a lot of “traditional media” entertainers are truely horrid. Ever seen a reality tv show? lol
For a Youtube influencer I can see them meet 3 of the criteria by showing their influence on others, money earned, Youtube awards for viewership (by Google!). Maybe some platforms lend themselves more to being used for this sort of evidence than others.
- Evidence of a record of major commercial or critically acclaimed successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales
- Evidence of significant recognition for achievements from organizations, government agencies, or other recognized experts in the field
- Evidence of having commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services in relation to others
It's maybe slightly less trivial to do, but still incredibly common to buy awards, recognition, press releases, positive reviews and commentary in publications.
You might be shocked to find out how much the performers being written about in magazines or discussed on TV shows is a direct line to the production company promoting them. Similar for awards.
> > advertisements, press releases, publications contracts, or endorsements
> > box office receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales
> > Evidence of having commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services in relation to others
I fail to see the distinction you are trying to draw. Commercial value and celebrity has always been one of the metrics of "achievement".
The overall gist is that the visa application should be someone who is not easily replaced by an existing local worker that can generate similar value.
At what point do we ever ask ourselves -- "what kind of culture do we want to create for the future of our country?" I don't think a pro soccer player is comparable to an onlyfans contributor. I would much prefer my future kids to be inspired by Cristiano Ronaldo than someone baring themselves on camera.
The other replies to this show a form of argumentation that's always fascinated me.
You say "We should encourage X over Y" and the retorts are
* "Y will still exist"
* "Y can still be encouraged separately"
* "You should tell me the difference between X and Y"
* "Hey, I found an X that sometimes acts vaguely similar to Y!"
None directly disagree with the original point, but they do imply fault in the original reasoning without providing any proof or requiring any effort.
The third one is a classic. A concise implication of error in which a good-faith response would be long-winded and boring comparatively.
To what end?
What are they hoping to get out of disagreeing with someone trying to encouraging our future culture to be one of relative wholesomeness?
... Why take the time out of one's day to say "well... encouraging X is great and all but you know what's better? passive-aggressively working against anyone that suggests it."?
If what you’re just concerned about people “baring themselves on camera” then they can continue to do that without emigrating to America and it would still affect your culture. The internet is global after all.
Also, it’s going to take more than a few thousand immigrants a year to affect the culture of a country as populous as America.
The internet is global, but having folks in our midst who make a living that way has more of an effect on our culture than if they are just on the internet.
It's not "just entertainment". We want extraordinary athletes and musicians to inspire people and show them what humans are capable of. Extraordinary prostitutes are generally not inspiring people in the way that most people probably would like society to move. It's fine to place different amounts of cultural value on these things and not remain neutral about the worth of all possible human endeavors.
When someone describes themselves as an "influencer", it is entirely appropriate to ask what sort of influence they're having, and whether we want that.
For what it's worth, as a O-1 scientist you have to provide evidence that you:
...are a member of scholarly/professional organizations;
...have published original research works scientifically and internationally (peer reviewed publications);
...that you have judged the work of others (supervised and/or examined Ph.D. candidates);
...that you have consulted to governments;
...that you have repeatedly been invited as guest speaker at conferences, trade fairs or universities;
...that you won major international scholarships and awards (e.g. best paper awards at conferences, Masters's/doctoral scholarships from prestigious universities like Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard or MIT;
...that three referees that are themselves O-1 level equivalents deem you worthy of receiving O-1 status;
...that you are a named inventor on patent applications and granted patents;
...that you have received media coverage;
...that you abilities are reflected in higher than typical compensation/salary/remuneration;
...that you won major international scholarships and awards (e.g. best paper awards at conferences, Masters's/doctoral scholarships from prestigious universities like Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard or MIT; or
...that you have published significant works (i.e., works that created impact through citations, business creation, or software systems using the methods described therein).
Usually, from an official ist similar to the above (which I re-wrote from memory here), three out of nine or so checkboxes is the lowest bar for an O-1, and if you tick all of them and work with a specialist law firm, then it should be a slam dunk; my O-1 took about six months from application to grant back in 2008 (no payments of any "expediting fees" if they exist were made as far as I know).
You may argue that these people aren't of such import, but I would beg to differ. This is the future of culture. These people shape the culture that the young people around you consume. They create the memes of six-seven-ification.
> why Hollywood became the Earth's center of cultural gravity post-WW2
The reason why Hollywood even exists is because it was a way of escaping the enforcement of patents and royalties. And it is easy being the cultural center of the western world when everything other cultural-relevant city in the western hemisphere is somewhat in ruins. Other than that, the lettering is a racist monument of a bygone era.
> You may argue that these people aren't of such import, but I would beg to differ
I'm not a US citizen, but lets face it - there is some irony in seeing some scientists fleeing for abroad offers, some probably deported, and having influencers or glorified strippers benefiting from some ill-thought program.
> These people shape the culture that the young people around you consume.
Do you have kids? I do. People don't give 2 f** about Hollywood or their "stars". Maybe in america. We have our own clowns here, and 15 minutes of fame doesn't require being predated on by some director (thankfully). My daughter couldn't name a single actor even if she wanted to - because movies are (mostly) dead, and series are a commodity. And I'm not saying this as some weirdo who doesn't own a TV or something - we have Disney, SkyShowTime, HBO, Amazon, etc. Its just "kids dont care about that anymore".
> They create the memes of six-seven-ification
So, do you know what that means exactly? Are you a Skrilla’s fan? Just asking, because from the tone of your response, you seem to have no idea of the meaning - just like kids saying "theez nuts" or whatever.
Influencers as the future of culture is not great. Hollywood had a ton of issues but it at least had some... class? If you watch an interview with Mr. Beast or other famous influencers they are concerningly ignorant, have little self-awareness and a child-like approach to reality. It makes total sense given these are teenagers who were lauded with fame for entertaining other teenagers on social media.
I watched the Mr. Beast episode of David Letterman's show, and I had no expectations but figured he must have some charisma as the most watched youtube person. He was unable to explain basic concepts, had no self-awareness, and generally seemed detached from any sort of reality. It was shocking to think that is who is shaping young peoples minds.
If one of America's main exports is culture, why would you ban factor inputs?
They're also not fungible and extremely mobile. People get attached to specific OF stars and the medium inherently requires remote work. So it's an inherently global labour force that protectionism won't help. American OF models won't magically make more money if you ban immigration unless you also ban cultural imports.
The government isn't displacing local talent by importing OF models and gets tax dollars for essentially doing nothing. Those tax dollars pay for schools/hospitals/etc.
OF also skews towards young, unmarried women, which balances the gender surplus of unmarried men that generally tries to immigrate. Since they're young, they also have more productivity before drawing on benefits like Medicare or Social Security.
By any objective standard OF models are the ideal migrant.
This seems more like importing culture. These content creators aren't coming to work or American creators, they are coming to America to create their content for American audiences or using American resources.
...I get this is HN but come on. It is just modern day JasminCam for lonely men that are being exploited through parasocial relationships. It is the opposite of productive. You just have society feeding on itself.
Isn’t that a derogatory stereotype? Aren’t those men (and women and other folks) as “exploited” as a reader of a book or a player of a game, who understands they’re about to be a part of a fantasy but willingly suspend the disbelief for a short while?
It’s only exploitation if this suspension of disbelief is artificially prolonged in nefarious way, with a self-reinforcing fantasy so the person loses touch with the reality and spends increasingly unhealthy amounts of time in a fantasy, or otherwise get conditioned and start to exhibit addiction-like behaviors that aren’t in their best long-term interests.
That happens (every entertainment industry has its whales), but saying it’s the norm (rather than a pathological extremity) is sort of stigmatizing.
Consent does not bless immoral acts or neutralize damage. A person who takes a drug voluntarily is still being harmed by it. It causes changes in the consumer whether he likes it or not. Causality does not care about your consent.
(And to address your analogy to books, the content of a work of fiction also matters. Reading bad books isn't good for your mind either. But literary fiction at least has the potential to be good. The genre isn't categorically bad.)
And porn is addictive. Porn addiction is extremely widespread and afflicts mostly young men. Porn's ubiquity and the easy with which it can be accessed has created a situation that did not exist before, and from a young age. And not only is it addictive, but it does real psychological damage to these consumers, creating what some call "porn brain". It is an excellent method for producing sexually-crippled creeps and incels unable - and even uninterested, given the nature of their "fantasy" - to have healthy relationships with real human beings, and the stats corroborate this.
It is an incredibly twisted and deranging vice. It destroys individuals and has a destructive impact on society as a whole.
There is a reason why "the oldest profession" is a polite idiom for prostitution.
Calling it "parasocial", doesn't change what it is, but the technology as a mediator does. And society has been feeding on itself since we moved past hunter gatherers.
>It is just modern day JasminCam for lonely men that are being exploited through parasocial relationships. It is the opposite of productive.
You can make all the moral judgments you like, but the fact is: They're making money either way, and then spending that money in their local communities. They can spend that money (and pay taxes on it) in the US or not.
It's no different economically than a musician or an actor doing the same.
But influencers are by default distributed and don't really need to be in a single place. Most of their collabs are in luxurious venues around the world (Because we live in a world worshipping rich stuff but that s another matter)
I have no judgement on these models. Everyone can make money through legal means as they deem fit.
But at the same time, the immigration system historically penalized anyone who engages in prostitution and actively denied entry to people found to be engaged in it. There is an explicit question about this in all immigration forms. Which is why it’s surprising that O-1 visas are being awarded to OnlyFans models. Maybe OF isn’t prostitution according to how it’s being interpreted, but it’s very surprising.
Idk if you mean it literally but conflating the sort of prostitution they ask about on immigration forms with taking naked pictures of yourself seems very wrong.
Disclaimer: I don't mean this comment as an insult to you or anyone else here. It's meant to be slightly tongue in cheek.
I hate to be that person, but the fact that so many people on HN think OF is prostitution is revealing of the site's demographics (i.e. older). It is, as some may put it, boomer thinking.
You're misunderstanding what these people - esports athletes, successful streamers, influencers, OF models etc - actually do. They create and maintain parasocial relationships.
The point isn't just the gameplay or nudes / sex videos or commentary. For e.g., I (and a bunch of other young women for some reason) love to watch Temet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go8EJbNaIHg while working. It's the way they reflect back to their audience and allow them to become a part of their performance.
It's kind of like the place where everyone knows your name? These are digital third places and the content (whether it be neon blue bunny hopping characters or a graphic video of someone having sex) is a mechanism for bonding / a part of the activity. Kind of like the alcohol at the pub, I suppose.
That's where real influence comes from in this age.
If you think OF is prostitution, you're fundamentally misunderstanding what will drive power and culture in this century.
The argument from cinema is flaky and a moral critique of Hollywood's influence is unavoidable. But we're talking about porn here, not cinema. This is decadence and depravity. How can you confuse cinema with the construction of an international whoredom? The numbers are also incommensurate.
And TikTok is the antithesis of culture. It's consumerist rubbish that encourages a vapid, thoughtless, and illiterate consumption of shallow material. The article even mentions the monetary motivations of those posting. Any gimmick will do just to make a buck.
Let us not relativize culture. If you relativize it, then your argument falls apart anyway. Authentic culture serves human beings. It involves learning from, developing, deepening, refining, and correcting what came before. Trash content doesn't do this. It is cultural poison. It ruins people's minds and wrecks society.
This use of O-1 visas is merely another sign of the downward trajectory of our polity. We are following Plato's description of social decline perfectly. Perhaps aesthetically, it is fitting that Trump is the poster boy of this abuse of O-1 visas, but he is at best an emanation and a catalyst of broader and deeper social and cultural processes. In the absence of a minimum of sound moral authority, you can expect the poison that lurks in the mud to hatch out and begin to dominate the polis.
Most of the scientists and engineers I know are on different visas. The US has gained a ton from being largely the cultural center of the world so it's good that there's a visa to take in cultural figures (even if I don't personally connect with influencer culture). As social media is new and fairly spread out, especially compared to traditional recipients like models and actors, it seems really unsurprising they are a ton of these now. I would say the problem is less we are taking in influencers and more we aren't accepting other people.
> The O-1 category includes the O-1A, which is designated for individuals with extraordinary ability in the sciences, education, business or athletics and the O-1B, reserved for those with “extraordinary ability or achievement”.
> My whole thing is being the funny Jewish girl with big boobs.
The O-1B category is broad because it's mostly entertainment based so there's more squishy room two of the requirements match a Top OF model though.
> Evidence of a record of major commercial or critically acclaimed successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales
> Evidence of having commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services in relation to others
A high earning OF model ticks both of those boxes pretty easily. We don't want to put dollar amounts on it to only attract movie stars because other professions don't pay as well would be blocked out and an explicit filter on (heh) explicit O1 visas would be a content based restriction that would (or at least imo should) be a 1A infringement. [0]
If you are a professional in a sphere like engineering, then getting eg 10k views on your videos is very remarkable and acts as a indirect proof of acclaim. But when it is the whole metric, then it just overvalues public professions where in itself 10k views is nothing remarkable. That's the core issue as far as I understand.
(But even for professionals, it's a very gameable metric. There is a whole industry that helps getting published material and appearances for O-1 applications.)
Proof of interest, not acclaim. And online interest is heavily skewed to the narrow activities of entertainment and education - professional community communication happens but in far smaller numbers vs the other two.
How is "extraordinary ability" defined? At what point does an influencer or OF model (or a traditional actor for that matter) have enough "extortionary ability" to get the visa?
By 1994, I was in triumphant optimism. I was young-ish, my country was in for its most beautiful decade ever, and the internet seemed to herald a time of final Liberation, with the Earth becoming home to a single, global scientist-philosopher society.
And so, suddenly, we find ourselves mired between traditionalist discomfort and pragmatic acceptance, an unglamorous terminus for earlier dreams of Human synthesis.
I mostly don’t care about influencers and OnlyFan, but that… Seems fine to me?
If you managed to amass 1M followers you clearly have strong abilities as an entertainer. The fact that the medium is different than what used to be the norm shouldn’t have an impact.
That's for only one of the subtypes of visa. The official site (https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary...) mentions a few more options, which would probably turn out to cover onlyfans if you get the right sort of professional advice:
> The O-1 nonimmigrant visa is for the individual who possesses extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics, or who has a demonstrated record of extraordinary achievement in the motion picture or television industry and has been recognized nationally or internationally for those achievements
"Whoever knowingly transports any individual in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, with intent that such individual engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both"
The area seems greyer when, as happens in some operations, one person A is getting paid to have sex, and the other person B having the sex is paying person A, even if B is filming the sex and selling the video.
If they wanted to make that point, then they should have made that point instead of quoting a snippet of legislation of dubious relevance to an article that devoted more lines to chess influencers, fashion influencers, and musicians, than porn stars.
> The O-1 category includes the O-1A, which is designated for individuals with extraordinary ability in the sciences, education, business or athletics and the O-1B, reserved for those with “extraordinary ability or achievement”.
Then later it says
> The O-1B visa, once reserved for Hollywood titans and superstar musicians, has evolved over the years.
I understand those two aren't necessarily contradictory, but the wording of the first sentence paints a very different mental picture than the second one (at least it did for me), especially since they throw in the O-1A and then almost exclusively talk about people applying for the O-1B after that.
Personally, I don't want the US choosing to give visas to influencers over scientists, but if this visa was already being heavily used to bring in actors, musicians, and athletes I don't see what the hubbub is about. I don't use TikTok or OnlyFans and I don't find e-sports entertaining, but I have a hard time arguing that a screen actor, Victoria's Secret model, or soccer player should be worthy of a visa and a social media star, OnlyFans model, or a professional Counter Strike player shouldn't is not. It's all just entertainment.
https://www.pathlawgroup.com/o1b-visa-requirements/
For traditional arts, you've gotta be good.For an influencer... some number of anonymous followers?
There are certainly some that would qualify... but it they should be held to the same standards as others.
Their visa application content is rather silly/absurd:
https://www.tiktok.com/@boy.throb/video/7572273147743980831
https://www.tiktok.com/@boy.throb/video/7567806911580622110
https://www.tiktok.com/@boy.throb/video/7584876341267270943
https://news.ycombinator.com/leaders
- Evidence of a record of major commercial or critically acclaimed successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales
- Evidence of significant recognition for achievements from organizations, government agencies, or other recognized experts in the field
- Evidence of having commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services in relation to others
You might be shocked to find out how much the performers being written about in magazines or discussed on TV shows is a direct line to the production company promoting them. Similar for awards.
> > advertisements, press releases, publications contracts, or endorsements
> > box office receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales
> > Evidence of having commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services in relation to others
I fail to see the distinction you are trying to draw. Commercial value and celebrity has always been one of the metrics of "achievement".
The overall gist is that the visa application should be someone who is not easily replaced by an existing local worker that can generate similar value.
You say "We should encourage X over Y" and the retorts are
None directly disagree with the original point, but they do imply fault in the original reasoning without providing any proof or requiring any effort.The third one is a classic. A concise implication of error in which a good-faith response would be long-winded and boring comparatively.
To what end?
What are they hoping to get out of disagreeing with someone trying to encouraging our future culture to be one of relative wholesomeness?
... Why take the time out of one's day to say "well... encouraging X is great and all but you know what's better? passive-aggressively working against anyone that suggests it."?
Also, it’s going to take more than a few thousand immigrants a year to affect the culture of a country as populous as America.
When someone describes themselves as an "influencer", it is entirely appropriate to ask what sort of influence they're having, and whether we want that.
It would be unwise to filter out the fun people. We'd all become a bunch of unfun nerds.
...are a member of scholarly/professional organizations;
...have published original research works scientifically and internationally (peer reviewed publications);
...that you have judged the work of others (supervised and/or examined Ph.D. candidates);
...that you have consulted to governments;
...that you have repeatedly been invited as guest speaker at conferences, trade fairs or universities;
...that you won major international scholarships and awards (e.g. best paper awards at conferences, Masters's/doctoral scholarships from prestigious universities like Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard or MIT;
...that three referees that are themselves O-1 level equivalents deem you worthy of receiving O-1 status;
...that you are a named inventor on patent applications and granted patents;
...that you have received media coverage;
...that you abilities are reflected in higher than typical compensation/salary/remuneration;
...that you won major international scholarships and awards (e.g. best paper awards at conferences, Masters's/doctoral scholarships from prestigious universities like Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard or MIT; or
...that you have published significant works (i.e., works that created impact through citations, business creation, or software systems using the methods described therein).
Usually, from an official ist similar to the above (which I re-wrote from memory here), three out of nine or so checkboxes is the lowest bar for an O-1, and if you tick all of them and work with a specialist law firm, then it should be a slam dunk; my O-1 took about six months from application to grant back in 2008 (no payments of any "expediting fees" if they exist were made as far as I know).
HN is getting overrun, man.
that's why they accept so much, the circulation of money would bring an enormous currency more than "traditional" job ever could
There's a reason why Hollywood became the Earth's center of cultural gravity post-WW2, https://goldenglobes.com/articles/exiles-and-emigres-hollywo...
You may argue that these people aren't of such import, but I would beg to differ. This is the future of culture. These people shape the culture that the young people around you consume. They create the memes of six-seven-ification.
The reason why Hollywood even exists is because it was a way of escaping the enforcement of patents and royalties. And it is easy being the cultural center of the western world when everything other cultural-relevant city in the western hemisphere is somewhat in ruins. Other than that, the lettering is a racist monument of a bygone era.
> You may argue that these people aren't of such import, but I would beg to differ
I'm not a US citizen, but lets face it - there is some irony in seeing some scientists fleeing for abroad offers, some probably deported, and having influencers or glorified strippers benefiting from some ill-thought program.
> These people shape the culture that the young people around you consume.
Do you have kids? I do. People don't give 2 f** about Hollywood or their "stars". Maybe in america. We have our own clowns here, and 15 minutes of fame doesn't require being predated on by some director (thankfully). My daughter couldn't name a single actor even if she wanted to - because movies are (mostly) dead, and series are a commodity. And I'm not saying this as some weirdo who doesn't own a TV or something - we have Disney, SkyShowTime, HBO, Amazon, etc. Its just "kids dont care about that anymore".
> They create the memes of six-seven-ification So, do you know what that means exactly? Are you a Skrilla’s fan? Just asking, because from the tone of your response, you seem to have no idea of the meaning - just like kids saying "theez nuts" or whatever.
I watched the Mr. Beast episode of David Letterman's show, and I had no expectations but figured he must have some charisma as the most watched youtube person. He was unable to explain basic concepts, had no self-awareness, and generally seemed detached from any sort of reality. It was shocking to think that is who is shaping young peoples minds.
Hollywood took a bribe from the tobacco industry to make smoking "cool" and infect our nation with cigarettes.
> have little self-awareness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mpUxn7NybY : "A big opportunity for us is that there are no gatekeepers. There's no one I have to convince to let me do things."
:-)
I think the whole world took up smoking because of Hollywood.
They're also not fungible and extremely mobile. People get attached to specific OF stars and the medium inherently requires remote work. So it's an inherently global labour force that protectionism won't help. American OF models won't magically make more money if you ban immigration unless you also ban cultural imports.
The government isn't displacing local talent by importing OF models and gets tax dollars for essentially doing nothing. Those tax dollars pay for schools/hospitals/etc.
OF also skews towards young, unmarried women, which balances the gender surplus of unmarried men that generally tries to immigrate. Since they're young, they also have more productivity before drawing on benefits like Medicare or Social Security.
By any objective standard OF models are the ideal migrant.
Isn’t that a derogatory stereotype? Aren’t those men (and women and other folks) as “exploited” as a reader of a book or a player of a game, who understands they’re about to be a part of a fantasy but willingly suspend the disbelief for a short while?
It’s only exploitation if this suspension of disbelief is artificially prolonged in nefarious way, with a self-reinforcing fantasy so the person loses touch with the reality and spends increasingly unhealthy amounts of time in a fantasy, or otherwise get conditioned and start to exhibit addiction-like behaviors that aren’t in their best long-term interests.
That happens (every entertainment industry has its whales), but saying it’s the norm (rather than a pathological extremity) is sort of stigmatizing.
Consent does not bless immoral acts or neutralize damage. A person who takes a drug voluntarily is still being harmed by it. It causes changes in the consumer whether he likes it or not. Causality does not care about your consent.
(And to address your analogy to books, the content of a work of fiction also matters. Reading bad books isn't good for your mind either. But literary fiction at least has the potential to be good. The genre isn't categorically bad.)
And porn is addictive. Porn addiction is extremely widespread and afflicts mostly young men. Porn's ubiquity and the easy with which it can be accessed has created a situation that did not exist before, and from a young age. And not only is it addictive, but it does real psychological damage to these consumers, creating what some call "porn brain". It is an excellent method for producing sexually-crippled creeps and incels unable - and even uninterested, given the nature of their "fantasy" - to have healthy relationships with real human beings, and the stats corroborate this.
It is an incredibly twisted and deranging vice. It destroys individuals and has a destructive impact on society as a whole.
Calling it "parasocial", doesn't change what it is, but the technology as a mediator does. And society has been feeding on itself since we moved past hunter gatherers.
You can make all the moral judgments you like, but the fact is: They're making money either way, and then spending that money in their local communities. They can spend that money (and pay taxes on it) in the US or not.
It's no different economically than a musician or an actor doing the same.
Plus AI porn is already a thing
But at the same time, the immigration system historically penalized anyone who engages in prostitution and actively denied entry to people found to be engaged in it. There is an explicit question about this in all immigration forms. Which is why it’s surprising that O-1 visas are being awarded to OnlyFans models. Maybe OF isn’t prostitution according to how it’s being interpreted, but it’s very surprising.
I hate to be that person, but the fact that so many people on HN think OF is prostitution is revealing of the site's demographics (i.e. older). It is, as some may put it, boomer thinking.
You're misunderstanding what these people - esports athletes, successful streamers, influencers, OF models etc - actually do. They create and maintain parasocial relationships.
The point isn't just the gameplay or nudes / sex videos or commentary. For e.g., I (and a bunch of other young women for some reason) love to watch Temet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go8EJbNaIHg while working. It's the way they reflect back to their audience and allow them to become a part of their performance.
It's kind of like the place where everyone knows your name? These are digital third places and the content (whether it be neon blue bunny hopping characters or a graphic video of someone having sex) is a mechanism for bonding / a part of the activity. Kind of like the alcohol at the pub, I suppose.
That's where real influence comes from in this age.
If you think OF is prostitution, you're fundamentally misunderstanding what will drive power and culture in this century.
And TikTok is the antithesis of culture. It's consumerist rubbish that encourages a vapid, thoughtless, and illiterate consumption of shallow material. The article even mentions the monetary motivations of those posting. Any gimmick will do just to make a buck.
Let us not relativize culture. If you relativize it, then your argument falls apart anyway. Authentic culture serves human beings. It involves learning from, developing, deepening, refining, and correcting what came before. Trash content doesn't do this. It is cultural poison. It ruins people's minds and wrecks society.
This use of O-1 visas is merely another sign of the downward trajectory of our polity. We are following Plato's description of social decline perfectly. Perhaps aesthetically, it is fitting that Trump is the poster boy of this abuse of O-1 visas, but he is at best an emanation and a catalyst of broader and deeper social and cultural processes. In the absence of a minimum of sound moral authority, you can expect the poison that lurks in the mud to hatch out and begin to dominate the polis.
> My whole thing is being the funny Jewish girl with big boobs.
> Evidence of a record of major commercial or critically acclaimed successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales
> Evidence of having commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services in relation to others
A high earning OF model ticks both of those boxes pretty easily. We don't want to put dollar amounts on it to only attract movie stars because other professions don't pay as well would be blocked out and an explicit filter on (heh) explicit O1 visas would be a content based restriction that would (or at least imo should) be a 1A infringement. [0]
https://www.pathlawgroup.com/o1b-visa-requirements/
[0] IMO a 1A restriction to who can come to the country is defacto a restriction on speech in the country.
I thought that was Rachel Bloom.
Is she passing the torch to the next generation?
Anyway, it's not that different from having the extraordinary ability of having hand-eye-coordination on a 7-foot frame.
(But even for professionals, it's a very gameable metric. There is a whole industry that helps getting published material and appearances for O-1 applications.)
And so, suddenly, we find ourselves mired between traditionalist discomfort and pragmatic acceptance, an unglamorous terminus for earlier dreams of Human synthesis.
If you managed to amass 1M followers you clearly have strong abilities as an entertainer. The fact that the medium is different than what used to be the norm shouldn’t have an impact.
>extraordinary ability in the sciences, education, business or athletics
> The O-1 nonimmigrant visa is for the individual who possesses extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics, or who has a demonstrated record of extraordinary achievement in the motion picture or television industry and has been recognized nationally or internationally for those achievements
Me dumping oil on the ground -> bad.
megacorp paying some engineers to make up a number for just how much oil is ok to dump on the ground and paying for government permission -> good
Diddy flying hoes around -> bad
OF models paying the .gov to fly around -> good
(I'm joking here, but not nearly as much as I wish I was)