Elon & Twitter

[Spacep0d]

If people don't like the $8 a month charge they can simply refrain from paying it. I don't see what the issue is. Better to pay $8 a month than be beholden to advertisers. Elon is not duty bound to offer the same benefits for a free Twitter account as he would for a paid one. I pay for YouTube Premium to skip ads though I take serious issue with YouTube's CEO and parent company. I pay for Tesla's Premium Connectivity. Elon isn't doing anything unusual or unexpected with the monthly fee. The subscription fee should by itself remove a lot of the noise.

I hope Elon takes SMR's suggestion where one should be able to filter out free accounts from one's feed. It's a fantastic idea.

 

[Bet TSLA]

Can you explain why you think the $8 for the blue check is not inline with free speech? Can someone who is not paying the subscription and loses the blue check no longer speak freely on Twitter?

I think it's kind of obvious what's objectionable. Charging for making your voice louder and increasing your visibility means that those with means have more effective free speech than those without. This is pretty much true everywhere isn't it? But I thought Elon was trying to be better than that.

I would like to think that those with high quality tweets would be those who would be amplified. But no.

So it's not that "free speech" is suffering, it's just that if you don't have the means to pay $8/month then what you get is second class free speech.

 

[advocate8]

Little “l” libertarian here.

I honestly don’t care if it’s Elon or Voldemort who owns Twitter as long as they’re taking the megaphone and cudgel away from the establishment uniparty.

One side is just pissed that they don’t get to throttle the other unchecked with the blessing and guidance from the DHS.

That’s fair. But….We need to hear less from billionaires. A LOT less.

 

[brkaus]

I think it's kind of obvious what's objectionable. Charging for making your voice louder and increasing your visibility means that those with means have more effective free speech than those without. This is pretty much true everywhere isn't it? But I thought Elon was trying to be better than that.

I would like to think that those with high quality tweets would be those who would be amplified. But no.

So it's not that "free speech" is suffering, it's just that if you don't have the means to pay $8/month then what you get is second class free speech.

Wait, there are high quality tweets?

 

[JRP3]

False equivalency there, your analogy doesn't work out the way you want it to.

Neither did Elon's comparison.

 

[bkp_duke]

I think it's kind of obvious what's objectionable. Charging for making your voice louder and increasing your visibility means that those with means have more effective free speech than those without. This is pretty much true everywhere isn't it? But I thought Elon was trying to be better than that.

I would like to think that those with high quality tweets would be those who would be amplified. But no.

So it's not that "free speech" is suffering, it's just that if you don't have the means to pay $8/month then what you get is second class free speech.

$8/mo is pretty low. AND Elon tweeted that it will be adjusted country by country according to average income in that country (so say in Africa it would be more along the lines of 8 cents/ month).

 

[JRP3]

Can you explain why you think the $8 for the blue check is not inline with free speech? Can someone who is not paying the subscription and loses the blue check no longer speak freely on Twitter?

That remains to be seen. Suddenly the richest man on earth is scrambling for dollars.

 

[ElectricIAC]

Nah. We need to hear less from billionaires. A LOT less.

It’s patently hilarious that you think you weren’t already being subjected to the whims of those awful, evil, billionaires.

 

[30seconds]

Why would anybody who just wants to read stuff on Twitter, dish out likes and retweets, and post occasionally pay anything for a blue check?

They probably won't. But people who are trying to build and monetize (or already are) a social media presence might.

 

[ZenRockGarden]

I think it's kind of obvious what's objectionable. Charging for making your voice louder and increasing your visibility means that those with means have more effective free speech than those without. This is pretty much true everywhere isn't it? But I thought Elon was trying to be better than that.

I would like to think that those with high quality tweets would be those who would be amplified. But no.

So it's not that "free speech" is suffering, it's just that if you don't have the means to pay $8/month then what you get is second class free speech.

I figure Twitter can charge whatever it wants for it's verified-user program. It feels like a one-time charge (to cover the labor of verifying the identity) would be more fair, but hey, Elon wants to get away from needing advertising revenue...

But that's the flaw here. Not the outrage at the price, but the idea that you tax what are basically your services best content-creators when in fact they are the thing that makes your product worth visiting. The more you make being a serious citizen on TWTR costly, the fewer serious citizens you'll likely have, and that trend is the opposite of making TWTR into a universally loved and used town-hall that Elon supposedly wants to create.

 

[bkp_duke]

I figure Twitter can charge whatever it wants for it's verified-user program. It feels like a one-time charge (to cover the labor of verifying the identity) would be more fair, but hey, Elon wants to get away from needing advertising revenue...

But that's the flaw here. Not the outrage at the price, but the idea that you tax what are basically your services best content-creators when in fact they are the thing that makes your product worth visiting. The more you make being a serious citizen on TWTR costly, the fewer serious citizens you'll likely have, and that trend is the opposite of making TWTR into a universally loved and used town-hall that Elon supposedly wants to create.

You completely missed his tweet that content creators will be PAID for the content?

I mean, seriously, do you just come in with guns blazing and not even check your facts before hand?

Elon KNOWS the content creators are king, it's why he was asking if Vine should be brought back, to compete with TikTok.

 

[ElectricIAC]

I figure Twitter can charge whatever it wants for it's verified-user program. It feels like a one-time charge (to cover the labor of verifying the identity) would be more fair, but hey, Elon wants to get away from needing advertising revenue...

But that's the flaw here. Not the outrage at the price, but the idea that you tax what are basically your services best content-creators when in fact they are the thing that makes your product worth visiting. The more you make being a serious citizen on TWTR costly, the fewer serious citizens you'll likely have, and that trend is the opposite of making TWTR into a universally loved and used town-hall that Elon supposedly wants to create.

The eight dollars may be temporary and will likely end up being waived or even vastly offset by profit sharing from crowdsourcing (like superchats or rumble rants) and or advertising.

Nothing wrong with trying different things at this point as the Twitter he bought as is shouldn’t be worth more than 10% of what he paid for it.

 

[STS-134]

As far as pissing off the “pro”gressives, it honestly isn’t hard to do since they’re always mad by default

If there's one side that's running on a platform of anger and grievance, it isn't the left.

 

[ZenRockGarden]

The eight dollars may be temporary and will likely end up being waived or even vastly offset by profit sharing from crowdsourcing (like superchats or rumble rants) and or advertising.

Nothing wrong with trying different things at this point as the Twitter he bought as is shouldn’t be worth more than 10% of what he paid for it.

If you want to preserve you best user-base, it might be smart to start with changes that help them vs try to screw them as the first symbolic act followed by maybe-helping-later. This is where I think Elon can be socially tone-deaf, which he can get away with at TSLA since he's sitting on an amazing product that sells itself despite the lousy customer service. But TWTR doesn't have an amazing unassailable product.

 

[Cherry Wine]

Can you explain why you think the $8 for the blue check is not inline with free speech? Can someone who is not paying the subscription and loses the blue check no longer speak freely on Twitter?

Agreed. This is a silly argument fixated on the word "free," as if "free speech" has anything to do with money.

 

[Right_Said_Fred]

But that's the flaw here. Not the outrage at the price, but the idea that you tax what are basically your services best content-creators when in fact they are the thing that makes your product worth visiting. The more you make being a serious citizen on TWTR costly, the fewer serious citizens you'll likely have, and that trend is the opposite of making TWTR into a universally loved and used town-hall that Elon supposedly wants to create.

You make it sound as if these people come to Twitter to create content for us. Most of them don’t. They come to Twitter because they want to be heard, need an audience, can boast that they’ve reached 100,000 or 1 million followers. Many of them are not doing it for us, they are doing it for themselves. To sell more books, to get people to vote for them, to promote an investment fund, to provide customer service so more people buy their products, etc, etc. They are not benefactors, 99% of them are serving their own interest or ego.

 

[ElectricIAC]

I personally have no plans on returning to Twitter but would use a login if Tesla integration made it necessary.

 

[ZenRockGarden]

You make it sound as if these people come to Twitter to create content for us. Most of them don’t. They come to Twitter because they want to be heard, need an audience, can boast that they’ve reached 100,000 or 1 million followers. Most of them are not doing it for us, they are doing it for themselves. To sell more books, to get people to vote for them, to promote an investment fund, to provide customer service so more people buy their products, etc, etc. They are not benefactors, 99% of them are serving their own interest or ego.

The logic of taxing the best most reputable content creators harder is completely upside down - platforms like youtube, tiktok, etc do the exact opposite - paying the best users to stay and keep producing content.

Do you have any stats to show that the majority of twitter users are producers as opposed to consumers of content? I expect it's the opposite

 

[bkp_duke]

The logic of taxing the best most reputable content creators harder is completely upside down - platforms like youtube, tiktok, etc do the exact opposite - paying the best users to stay and keep producing content.

Do you have any stats to show that the majority of twitter users are producers as opposed to consumers of content? I expect it's the opposite

AGAIN - this is false. Elon stated that content creators will be paid.

 

[STS-134]

AGAIN - this is false. Elon stated that content creators will be paid.

He's also said that FSD will be coming "next year" every year for the past decade. The first time someone lies and people believe him or her, I blame the liar. When it happens again and again and again, I am more inclined to blame the people who actually keep believing the liar.