31–40 of 79 posts
I suspect if Elon can get away with charging many, and probably most, heavy users of the platform a monthly fee, Zuckerberg will as well. In many ways such an outcome makes sense given Apple's ATT changes decimated targeted advertising revenue.
Charging the people who create content for you is not going to fly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Charging the people who create content for you is not going to fly.
People have an extremely dependent relationship with Twitter. It’s more like gambling than media. They will absolutely pay.
I suspect if Elon can get away with charging many, and probably most, heavy users of the platform a monthly fee, Zuckerberg will as well. In many ways such an outcome makes sense given Apple's ATT changes decimated targeted advertising revenue.
Charging the people who create content for you is not going to fly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many people will pay 2x the price of Disney+/Spotify/Netflix for a blue check on Twitter?
That's an arbitrary anchor which is almost meaningless. >Why buy a yacht when you can buy a blue check? I'm sure a lot of peeps will buy it. It will bring mediocre revenue, though, particularly against that 44B (+ OpEx) tag.
I suspect if Elon can get away with charging many, and probably most, heavy users of the platform a monthly fee, Zuckerberg will as well. In many ways such an outcome makes sense given Apple's ATT changes decimated targeted advertising revenue.
Heavy users as in frequent posters: is just selling native advertising. It doesn't change the ad-suported model.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And it may also make the blue ticks meaningless, if just anyone can pay and get them.
That's how universities with donor and alumni preference work. They let in notable people more easily and people that test well may even get a scholarship, and others can bribe to be included in the club.
As a society, we also confer prestige on a lot of things that basically amount to spending a prohibitively large sum of money: running a foundation; being an angel investor; owning a sports team, champion racehorse, Lamborghini, etc. But if just anybody can afford something and the only barrier to entry is cost, then it has no social currency.
I suspect if Elon can get away with charging many, and probably most, heavy users of the platform a monthly fee, Zuckerberg will as well. In many ways such an outcome makes sense given Apple's ATT changes decimated targeted advertising revenue.
People fundamentally use Facebook differently than twitter, even if fb can be used as a public square, most ppl still use it to network with ppl they know (or used to know). Whereas twitter’s entire use case is talking to people who you’ve never met and likely never will. The point is that engagement is very different and no one cares about verification on fb. Editable posts have been a thing for years and I’m blanki…
facebook is bad because it is run with an iron fist by a single person. Eventually Zuckerberg was surrounded by yesmen. This is almost impossible to avoid. With wealth inequality on the rise, the yesman industry has developed a lot of tradecraft that has made them better at the extraction of that wealth. This creates mania, and with no oversight, the entire company is subject to his manic whims.
I suspect if Elon can get away with charging many, and probably most, heavy users of the platform a monthly fee, Zuckerberg will as well. In many ways such an outcome makes sense given Apple's ATT changes decimated targeted advertising revenue.