Twitter’s $42k-per-month API prices out nearly everyone

Post by secos » Fri, Mar 10, 2023, 10:01 PM UTC

olalonde wrote: post #68

mike_d wrote: post #24

All of these moves make sense when you zoom out and realize Musk has no interest in Twitter as a business. It is a megaphone to amplify his own voice and the voices that support his viewpoints. Having third party API consumers able to pull in content and reorder it other than how he wants it presented is counter to that goal. The genius of Fox News was "why spend money on buying political attack ads when you can just…

Also consistent with his stated goal of making the business profitable.

Post by lowercased » Fri, Mar 10, 2023, 10:04 PM UTC

addisonl wrote: post #41

harvey9 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Twitter will sell your attention in addition to other revenue streams, given the chance.

Exactly, your attention is always going to be sold to the highest bidder—that won't change. Now you just get worse 3rd party apps and integrations. Interesting to see the attempt to spin this as a positive.

Post by scott_w » Fri, Mar 10, 2023, 10:06 PM UTC

starik36 wrote: post #69

slg wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is possible to criticize Musk and his management of Twitter for completely apolitical reasons. You have to be a sycophant to describe his management style as anything other than chaotic. There are literally employees at the company who don't have any work because there is no one to assign them to a department or team. There are people who don't even know if they work there anymore because the layoffs were handled…

Yes, it's possible. But saying "guy that played himself into burning $44 billion on a website that makes no money, just so he could force all its users to read his shitposts" isn't the way. It just reveals their biases.

Post by l33t233372 » Fri, Mar 10, 2023, 10:09 PM UTC

user3939382 wrote: post #79

jacobedawson wrote: post #22

...Blackburn, however, says researchers will continue to find a way to scrutinize what’s happening on Twitter. “We’ve been mostly cut off from Facebook for years and we’ve continued to make progress,” he says. “It’s not like science is going to be held hostage by a guy that played himself into burning $44 billion on a website that makes no money, just so he could force all its users to read his shitposts.”

[flagged]

Post by kenjackson » Fri, Mar 10, 2023, 10:11 PM UTC

2h wrote: post #78

anigbrowl wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Academics don't resell the data to others. In fact, their existing agreements with Twitter requires their published datasets (for reproducibility) to be anonymized precisely to ensure they don't become a commercial goldmine. Given that most of the article is about the pricing tiers for academic use, based on marketing communications to universities, your comment seems strangely indifferent to the context of this news…

Why cant universities fund it with their billion dollar endowments?