italian bread
Member
When millionaire celebrities don’t think the blue checkmark is worth spending $8 for, what will convince those with less disposable income to do so?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Elon & Twitter
- Thread starter Buckminster
- Start date
- Status
italian bread
Member
Well, everyone who follows Stephen King will see the blue checkmark, but not all of those followers will see Musk’s tweet about paying for it. And at least you can get something of value at Starbucks.
️
italian bread
Member
The crassness and cheapness of these spoiled rich celebrates throwing tantrums to pay $8 - the equivalent of the price of a cup of coffee - for a platform that needs subscriptions for its survival and the one that gives them enormous reach into their subscriber base - is just plain nauseating.
These vermins would rather see the platfrom implode due to financial strain rather than pay $8. Cheap, cheap cheap.
These vermins would rather see the platfrom implode due to financial strain rather than pay $8. Cheap, cheap cheap.
Last edited:
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
The platform doesn't need subscriptions for survival (Twitter Blue makes up a pittance of revenue), it needs ads and those celebrities are what bring in the ad revenue. I venture to guess those celebrities bring in way more ad revenue than $8 per month.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
If you are saying for that $8 specifically, they get almost nothing in return. Currently there aren't really any concrete features that are really worth the $8. Twitter is removing the legacy check mark to try to add that to the "value" portion of Twitter Blue, but I think few people see that as real value (especially given the desirability of a checkmark has fallen drastically after this change).
If you are saying for being on Twitter in general, they get "exposure" being on Twitter, but it's hard to put an exact monetary value on that (there are also plenty of other platforms they can use that aren't trying to charge them monthly fees, plus celebrities have plenty of other venues for "exposure" before Twitter or social media even existed). However, it's pretty easy to say that Twitter gets way more than $8 in ad revenue simply from a celebrity posting in their platform, that bit is pretty sure.
Last edited:
Saying that Twitter needs subscriptions to survive is like saying that the Disneyland Resort needs the Anaheim Convention Center next door to survive. No...the reverse is true -- the convention center needs Disneyland, and if Disneyland weren't there, far fewer people would be interested in attending conventions in Anaheim.
Twitter doesn't need subscriptions, it actually needs content -- content produced by people like journalists and celebrities -- that drives other people to read tweets and allows them to sell ads. Asking celebrities to pay to use Twitter is like the City of Anaheim asking Disneyland to fund upgrades to the convention center and somehow claiming that if the convention center disappears, the Disneyland Resort's guests will also vanish. And if the city were ever that stupid, I'm pretty sure what The Walt Disney Company's response would be.
The disruption of online media begins:
Soon you won't be able to read about the success of Twitter anywhere but Twitter (for multiple reasons).
Soon you won't be able to read about the success of Twitter anywhere but Twitter (for multiple reasons).
EfficientWatts
Member
Your problem is that you're trying to apply the "own the libs" mentality to the flip side, except that they don't see it that way.
You make it sound like that they want to own Elon, everything else be darned, even if it means dooming their own business. In reality, if Twitter were to disappear tomorrow, they have other things to fall back to, and there's always the possibility of someone cooking up a functional Twitter clone.
Funny enough, I feel like you're projecting how people feel about the right wanting to "own" (see Disneyworld/Ron DeSantis). Unlike Twitter, if Disneyworld were to pack up and leave Florida would be in a lot more hurt competitively. That being said I do not see that likely happening either.
Edit: also by your own admission you seem to imply that Twitter maybe on more shaky ground than you would like to let on. After all, if a group of "haters" (and to be clear all platforms have their own haters) is able to cause Twitter to implode simply by not buying Twitter Blue, then it's financial situation is a lot more precarious then some make it out to be.
Edit2: also, free speech amiright? Or is it not free speech if it hurts Elon?
Last edited:
EfficientWatts
Member
I wonder if he is conflating Buzzfeed the organization with Buzzfeed the news. Unlike the org I did not hear the same level of criticism about the news side of things. Wouldn't be surprised if he mixed them up.
Tiger
Active Member
Ironic, if you're well connected enough, you'll get a blue checkmark without paying also on the "new uncorruped twitter"
What was that old song again about fate and iron and hypocrisy?
italian bread
Member
there’s one comment that suggests the label for an account affiliated with Russia has also been removed. So, while no longer misleading people about non-government controlled accounts such as NPR and BBC, people will no longer be able to easily identify accounts which ARE government controlled.
This might convince additional news outlets from leaving Twitter, but will be a win for misinformation.
italian bread
Member
Paying for Twitter was, is, and probably always will be ridiculous
Basically, what you’re paying for with Twitter Blue is the perceived prestige of having a coveted few pixels next to your name, a sort of fast pass that bumps your tweets up higher on the For You page and in replies, and some other customization features. What you gain, though, is paltry compared to what you give, and likely have been giving to Twitter already.
When you use Twitter—or any social media app—you are not the customer, but the product. If you’re like this writer, you’ve already been providing Twitter with free content for over a decade, offering up text and media for nothing more than the sweet, sweet dopamine rush of a notification. This is already kind of dumb (hey, it’s addictive) but to pay to do that is ridiculous. Frankly, Twitter should be paying its top users for generating the content that keeps people coming back.
While most don’t, some users have been able to make a living via other apps like TikTok (directly from the app) or Instagram (through sponsorships). But it’s next to impossible to effectively monetize a Twitter account. You could use it to promote another venture that actually pays you, or, if you’re lucky, can hock sex toys and ring lights under a viral tweet for (anecdotally) about $25. Twitter has started to roll out a tips feature, where you can send your favorite accounts money, but the prospect of earning a significant amount from the feature seems dubious at best. Mostly, you’re sending little jokes into the void, earning nothing yourself but helping one of the world’s richest men keep his increasingly glitchy app afloat. Now, you can also pay to do that.
Even if many of us muted Musk long ago, the “chief twit” has recently been spending his days spreading anti-trans rhetoric on his account and going on Tucker Carlson to share his urge to get people pregnant. This is where your money is going, but tweeters and journalists have been calling out Musk’s increasingly far-right views even before he took control of the app. Knowing this, it’s hard to continue using the app at all in good conscience. But if you do, please, for the love of God, don’t pay for it.
Basically, what you’re paying for with Twitter Blue is the perceived prestige of having a coveted few pixels next to your name, a sort of fast pass that bumps your tweets up higher on the For You page and in replies, and some other customization features. What you gain, though, is paltry compared to what you give, and likely have been giving to Twitter already.
When you use Twitter—or any social media app—you are not the customer, but the product. If you’re like this writer, you’ve already been providing Twitter with free content for over a decade, offering up text and media for nothing more than the sweet, sweet dopamine rush of a notification. This is already kind of dumb (hey, it’s addictive) but to pay to do that is ridiculous. Frankly, Twitter should be paying its top users for generating the content that keeps people coming back.
While most don’t, some users have been able to make a living via other apps like TikTok (directly from the app) or Instagram (through sponsorships). But it’s next to impossible to effectively monetize a Twitter account. You could use it to promote another venture that actually pays you, or, if you’re lucky, can hock sex toys and ring lights under a viral tweet for (anecdotally) about $25. Twitter has started to roll out a tips feature, where you can send your favorite accounts money, but the prospect of earning a significant amount from the feature seems dubious at best. Mostly, you’re sending little jokes into the void, earning nothing yourself but helping one of the world’s richest men keep his increasingly glitchy app afloat. Now, you can also pay to do that.
Even if many of us muted Musk long ago, the “chief twit” has recently been spending his days spreading anti-trans rhetoric on his account and going on Tucker Carlson to share his urge to get people pregnant. This is where your money is going, but tweeters and journalists have been calling out Musk’s increasingly far-right views even before he took control of the app. Knowing this, it’s hard to continue using the app at all in good conscience. But if you do, please, for the love of God, don’t pay for it.
I'm not a fan of the new Twitter Blue (I actually tried, not worth it in my case), but I agree also that a lot of mid-sized celebrities are being crybabies.
The only interesting take I read about "damage" in real life is this one:
www.theatlantic.com
I mean, a malicious verified impersonator could do some damage in emergencies.
The only interesting take I read about "damage" in real life is this one:
Elon Musk Has Broken Disaster-Response Twitter
The social-media platform’s crisis has become a real-world crisis.
www.theatlantic.com
I mean, a malicious verified impersonator could do some damage in emergencies.
italian bread
Member
Here’s a better way to spend $8 a month than for Twitter Blue (or Starbucks).
At least 78 dead in stampede during $9 aid event
About 20.7 million people out of the total population of 30.5 million in Yemen are currently in need of humanitarian assistance, UNICEF said, with 14.3 million people in acute need. The agency says around £10 ($12.45) provides life-saving therapeutic food for a child in Yemen for a week.
At least 78 dead in stampede during $9 aid event
About 20.7 million people out of the total population of 30.5 million in Yemen are currently in need of humanitarian assistance, UNICEF said, with 14.3 million people in acute need. The agency says around £10 ($12.45) provides life-saving therapeutic food for a child in Yemen for a week.
The hit pieces will continue until the target is dead.
- Status
