WIO

actor

PROFESSION

Evidence in r/popculturechat — Pop Culture

Trend support

Rising+0.1 pp
Current seven-day window
Current 2026-07-22 → 2026-07-28
Comparison seven-day window
Comparison 2026-07-15 → 2026-07-21
Distinct-document support
Seen in 260 current vs 205 comparison posts/comments
Mentions
305 current vs 245 mentions

Windows are complete UTC days compared with the preceding seven. How trends are measured.

Also Mentioned 1,329 times in the most-discussed range 2026-06-29 → 2026-07-29 — frequency, not a trend.

Attention over time

7-day rolling share of analyzed posts/comments mentioning this entity · 90 daily points ending 2026-07-28

Final complete day: 2026-07-28. Attention was 0.7% — this entity appeared in 260 of 36,136 analyzed posts/comments in the seven days ending that day (305 mentions).

0%1.0%Apr 30Jun 13Jul 28

Hover, touch, or focus the chart (Tab) and use the arrow keys — each point is one seven-day window.

View all 90 data points (semantic table)
Week endingSeven-day rangeStatusPrevalenceSeen inMentionsAnalyzed
2026-04-302026-04-242026-04-30Comparable0.6%179 of 30,07119530,071
2026-05-012026-04-252026-05-01Comparable0.7%203 of 31,10922231,109
2026-05-022026-04-262026-05-02Comparable0.6%199 of 32,04621632,046
2026-05-032026-04-272026-05-03Comparable0.6%191 of 32,40220732,402
2026-05-042026-04-282026-05-04Comparable0.5%181 of 36,63819736,638
2026-05-052026-04-292026-05-05Comparable0.4%171 of 40,44718840,447
2026-05-062026-04-302026-05-06Comparable0.4%153 of 40,57516840,575
2026-05-072026-05-012026-05-07Comparable0.4%161 of 41,10517441,105
2026-05-082026-05-022026-05-08Comparable0.4%152 of 40,80516340,805
2026-05-092026-05-032026-05-09Comparable0.4%152 of 38,91016338,910
2026-05-102026-05-042026-05-10Comparable0.4%140 of 37,64215037,642
2026-05-112026-05-052026-05-11Comparable0.4%139 of 34,13014834,130
2026-05-122026-05-062026-05-12Comparable0.5%131 of 28,89313828,893
2026-05-132026-05-072026-05-13Comparable0.5%136 of 29,79014429,790
2026-05-142026-05-082026-05-14Comparable0.5%138 of 30,57914630,579
2026-05-152026-05-092026-05-15Comparable0.4%132 of 30,70013930,700
2026-05-162026-05-102026-05-16Comparable0.5%148 of 32,84815632,848
2026-05-172026-05-112026-05-17Comparable0.5%158 of 34,83916634,839
2026-05-182026-05-122026-05-18Comparable0.5%172 of 34,96818134,968
2026-05-192026-05-132026-05-19Comparable0.5%168 of 34,04917834,049
2026-05-202026-05-142026-05-20Comparable0.5%163 of 33,22417333,224
2026-05-212026-05-152026-05-21Comparable0.5%171 of 32,01618632,016
2026-05-222026-05-162026-05-22Comparable0.6%191 of 31,41621131,416
2026-05-232026-05-172026-05-23Comparable0.6%176 of 30,24519430,245
2026-05-242026-05-182026-05-24Comparable0.6%176 of 28,46219428,462
2026-05-252026-05-192026-05-25Comparable0.6%165 of 27,06618327,066
2026-05-262026-05-202026-05-26Comparable0.6%170 of 28,30419128,304
2026-05-272026-05-212026-05-27Comparable0.7%213 of 28,97124428,971
2026-05-282026-05-222026-05-28Comparable0.7%213 of 29,39924129,399
2026-05-292026-05-232026-05-29Comparable0.7%206 of 29,44223429,442
2026-05-302026-05-242026-05-30Comparable0.7%208 of 29,62023829,620
2026-05-312026-05-252026-05-31Comparable0.7%219 of 30,83425230,834
2026-06-012026-05-262026-06-01Comparable0.7%231 of 32,18526732,185
2026-06-022026-05-272026-06-02Comparable0.8%278 of 33,21231933,212
2026-06-032026-05-282026-06-03Comparable0.8%252 of 32,77528632,775
2026-06-042026-05-292026-06-04Comparable0.7%231 of 32,19026632,190
2026-06-052026-05-302026-06-05Comparable0.8%245 of 31,86428631,864
2026-06-062026-05-312026-06-06Comparable0.8%263 of 32,70930732,709
2026-06-072026-06-012026-06-07Comparable0.8%255 of 31,87329831,873
2026-06-082026-06-022026-06-08Comparable0.8%246 of 32,46328832,463
2026-06-092026-06-032026-06-09Comparable0.6%195 of 31,21923231,219
2026-06-102026-06-042026-06-10Comparable0.6%188 of 32,25722432,257
2026-06-112026-06-052026-06-11Comparable0.7%225 of 33,26527733,265
2026-06-122026-06-062026-06-12Comparable0.6%208 of 33,47425233,474
2026-06-132026-06-072026-06-13Comparable0.6%201 of 32,65224832,652
2026-06-142026-06-082026-06-14Comparable0.6%216 of 33,90226333,902
2026-06-152026-06-092026-06-15Comparable0.6%207 of 32,87725132,877
2026-06-162026-06-102026-06-16Comparable0.6%205 of 33,02824733,028
2026-06-172026-06-112026-06-17Comparable0.6%193 of 32,41823832,418
2026-06-182026-06-122026-06-18Comparable0.5%153 of 31,58417831,584
2026-06-192026-06-132026-06-19Comparable0.5%138 of 30,97416130,974
2026-06-202026-06-142026-06-20Comparable0.4%125 of 30,20714330,207
2026-06-212026-06-152026-06-21Comparable0.4%113 of 28,40113228,401
2026-06-222026-06-162026-06-22Comparable0.4%108 of 28,90812628,908
2026-06-232026-06-172026-06-23Comparable0.5%147 of 30,17116630,171
2026-06-242026-06-182026-06-24Comparable0.6%172 of 29,33619129,336
2026-06-252026-06-192026-06-25Comparable0.7%205 of 31,34623331,346
2026-06-262026-06-202026-06-26Comparable0.7%213 of 31,72124031,721
2026-06-272026-06-212026-06-27Comparable0.7%221 of 33,02725033,027
2026-06-282026-06-222026-06-28Comparable0.6%206 of 33,64223233,642
2026-06-292026-06-232026-06-29Comparable0.6%202 of 31,95322831,953
2026-06-302026-06-242026-06-30Comparable0.6%166 of 29,08919229,089
2026-07-012026-06-252026-07-01Comparable0.5%136 of 28,56716028,567
2026-07-022026-06-262026-07-02Comparable0.5%119 of 26,49513826,495
2026-07-032026-06-272026-07-03Comparable0.6%153 of 25,75918825,759
2026-07-042026-06-282026-07-04Comparable0.6%138 of 23,84917023,849
2026-07-052026-06-292026-07-05Comparable0.7%160 of 23,21119523,211
2026-07-062026-06-302026-07-06Comparable0.8%187 of 24,99222624,992
2026-07-072026-07-012026-07-07Comparable0.7%179 of 26,25321326,253
2026-07-082026-07-022026-07-08Comparable0.7%211 of 28,58524728,585
2026-07-092026-07-032026-07-09Comparable0.7%204 of 28,85624228,856
2026-07-102026-07-042026-07-10Comparable0.6%164 of 29,94318829,943
2026-07-112026-07-052026-07-11Comparable0.6%157 of 27,96517927,965
2026-07-122026-07-062026-07-12Comparable0.5%130 of 24,90014924,900
2026-07-132026-07-072026-07-13Comparable0.5%107 of 23,29812423,298
2026-07-142026-07-082026-07-14Comparable0.5%121 of 24,36814024,368
2026-07-152026-07-092026-07-15Comparable0.5%117 of 23,38513723,385
2026-07-162026-07-102026-07-16Comparable0.5%128 of 24,17614924,176
2026-07-172026-07-112026-07-17Comparable0.6%138 of 23,68115923,681
2026-07-182026-07-122026-07-18Comparable0.6%159 of 26,09518426,095
2026-07-192026-07-132026-07-19Comparable0.6%191 of 30,56322230,563
2026-07-202026-07-142026-07-20Comparable0.6%198 of 31,96222831,962
2026-07-212026-07-152026-07-21Comparable0.6%205 of 33,10524533,105
2026-07-222026-07-162026-07-22Comparable0.6%193 of 32,96823032,968
2026-07-232026-07-172026-07-23Comparable0.6%207 of 32,15424532,154
2026-07-242026-07-182026-07-24Comparable0.6%201 of 33,32924033,329
2026-07-252026-07-192026-07-25Comparable0.6%215 of 35,57225635,572
2026-07-262026-07-202026-07-26Comparable0.6%226 of 36,20326536,203
2026-07-272026-07-212026-07-27Comparable0.7%250 of 36,83829736,838
2026-07-282026-07-222026-07-28Comparable0.7%260 of 36,13630536,136

Each point is a seven-day rolling window of complete UTC days; a point is comparable only when at least 100 analyzed posts or comments fall inside it. A day with no analyzed records counts as zero; missing coverage is marked and never shown as zero. The series ends at the latest complete analyzed day — it never extends into the current incomplete day. How attention is measured.

Recent mentions

  1. Comment

    Yeah people don't realize actor budgets kill movies/shows all the time when trying to sequels, another season and stuff. Or quality goes down the drain because all the budget goes to the now famous actor

  2. Comment

    > I'm claiming any model who is making more than pocket change is targeted by "managers" who make a living exploiting them and while sometimes this works well there is no real regulation in the industry, anybody can do it. No. Now you're changing your claim, especially the one I specifically pointed out as sounding quite off. What you said, verbatim, was >The majority of larger onlyfans accounts have managers, quite a few of which are extremely predatory and abusive to "models" they control. That is very clearly a completely different point than what you are soft backpedalling to. It's just not honest to do that. You're trying to make me out to be arguing against something different than I am arguing against while still trying to, for whatever reason, push a narrative you believe in spite of facts forward. >There's often more laws surrounding the production of pornography for sale if you're a business while fewer deal with people ostensibly selling it themselves. These laws don't protect the actors though. They function more to make entering harder and add a taxable element. More than that, the key thing that is being ignored is the numbers. No one, specifically myself, denied that abuse exists in both, but I specifically took issue with your notion that it was the top earners who were most likely to be in such an arrangement, because it sounds farcical on its face, and no facts support that idea at all. In fact, if you actually look up common forums and communication spots for workers on these websites, its extremely common for them to make fun of, and clearly warn against giving time to managers who are treated as a nuisance scam. These scammers are also not in person typically and the schemes you are referring to almost all revolve around people who arent English speakers/from the countries most affected by this type of thing (low cost of living/opportunity/etc. My point is, the one report, by a corporation not familiar to the topic, that you thought supported your initial statement, but actually didn't, and then you still twisted a story about as if it did is not really the source you feel it is. I'm sure this isn't an argument about fact or reality; it never is on this topic. People have there one rendition of taken they've imagined up in their heads, and even though I happen to follow this type of news passively, know about various "professional" studios that have been shut down for irl coercion, sex abuse, etc, and know of some that *should* be shut down, who affected many thousands of people, a special interest story by an outlet to give people the narrative they crave does more talking than the realities. Like, let's be real. The real story of what you're thinking about is an impoverished eastern european girl who needs money quick and is tricked into a management deal where they're pressured to do things they don't want to do and not given details about the payment structure. It's very similar to what you said, but I lost the """sex appeal""" (I say disgusted), of this story because them being a short term worker, not speaking a language you know, they don't "feel" human. They're not a "good enough" story, and there is also no convenient way to completely eliminate that. I'm not even sure where I'm going with this; I'm just frequently annoyed because this is a topic where I have any familiarity, and somehow people take that as meaning that I know *less* than their literal guesses where they have to quickly scramble to try to find some sources that back them up, when it's like, I frequently read about this sort of thing because I do watch porn. I think part of it is people have a purity politics about it where ignorance is better than """participating in the abuse""" which is what I assume the people who feel that way feel about any and all types of porn. I can tell you though, looking at the analytics of these sites, where available, all of the top earners are very clearly independent (by which I mean, visibly have a full amount of control and knowledge of the details of the operation, set their own schedules, etc. Like if you watched any porn of this variety, you might know some do Q&As, talk about their scheduling, complain on twitter about the state of healthcare for sex workers etc etc. Just too much to be that specific type of situation you're referring to) and its a rare cases where managerial abuse like this breaks out, and when those do arise, they're often from the partners of the models involved (think the Amouranth story, but they get less attention and instead fade away with a quick social media post etc). The last thing though, is about the numbers. When what it takes to be successful is often diametrically opposed to what typical managers want to push because it lets them keep control, you'll see that inherently the incentive structures of in real life pimping, camming, and other such forms of coerced sex work just make far more sense. I don't know why I even bothered putting so much effort into this comment. I'm almost confident the response will be to find a single point of contention and dismiss the comment wholesale. It's just so frustrating to me, because I actually can think of so many ways to make things overall safer for sex workers that are specifically not on the table because half the time the sex workers themselves are having to fight against people "fighting on their behalf" being overzealous, and assuming they're all lost bambis and the other half, they're pushing the hardest on issues they truly don't understand, and to a degree that they can't really have productive opinions on the topic.

  3. Comment

    Apparently it was even worse in the hobbit films. Numerous of the dwarf actors have said that the stars were treated like royalty, but most of the local NZ actors got little attention. The NZ government and film industry also bent itself over backwards to stop industrial action from unions that would upset the Hollywood companies.

  4. Comment

    The most parasocial I’ve ever felt about an actor is when I saw that his bottom row of teeth are crooked in almost the exact same way mine are. Same overlapped tooth and all 😭

  5. Comment

    Some movies do give their actors bonuses, others don’t. You have the backend deals that some actors talk about. But that money is never disclosed.

Excerpts above are public Reddit posts and comments. WIO never synthesizes Reddit URLs from stored ids, and entities are extracted automatically and may be wrong. See the extraction notes and the limitations and privacy section of the methodology.