111–120 of 181 posts
And they all go over to Bluesky now, co-invented by the former Twitter CEO, paid by investors, providing exactly one server. What could go wrong?
Jack Dorsey no longer believes in or participates on Bluesky. He deleted his account a month ago. Is his former involvement really still relevant?
>Musk said “It’s the only way I can think of to combat vast armies of bots.” With so many of these billionaires and CEOs it is becoming impossible to tell whether they are transparently lying or complete idiots. Just admit you need the revenue and you want people to put a card on file to lower the bar for future financial transactions. Charging for a service doesn't eliminate bots, it just shifts the financial break…
And they all go over to Bluesky now, co-invented by the former Twitter CEO, paid by investors, providing exactly one server. What could go wrong?
> co-invented by the former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey no longer believes in or participates on Bluesky. He deleted his account a month ago. Is his former involvement really still relevant?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It must shift it by a lot, right? I would think the cost of a twitter bot would be in the neighborhood of a fraction of a cent/year.
A bot on its own doesn't cost Twitter much directly, but enough bots costs Twitter users.
What's worse, killing your own company because you can't get advertising revenue, or killing your own company because you are desperately trying to make up for the loss of said advertising revenue?
>Musk said “It’s the only way I can think of to combat vast armies of bots.” With so many of these billionaires and CEOs it is becoming impossible to tell whether they are transparently lying or complete idiots. Just admit you need the revenue and you want people to put a card on file to lower the bar for future financial transactions. Charging for a service doesn't eliminate bots, it just shifts the financial break…
So bots just need to earn more than a dollar per year in revenue to break even? That’s every scam bot in existence!
>Musk said “It’s the only way I can think of to combat vast armies of bots.” With so many of these billionaires and CEOs it is becoming impossible to tell whether they are transparently lying or complete idiots. Just admit you need the revenue and you want people to put a card on file to lower the bar for future financial transactions. Charging for a service doesn't eliminate bots, it just shifts the financial break…
Existing bots can be slowly banned off. The problem with bots, on any platform, is their ability to just make a new account instantly.
$1 per account is not that much money to pay if you want to spam or manipulate twitter. According to this (https://www.privacyaffairs.com/dark-web-price-index-2022/) as hacked Twitter account $25, and I believe I've read that fresh accounts already sell for a couple dollars (because the cost of faking through signup verifications, etc).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think X should get credit for this move anyways. Them charging for access may make more people comfortable with the idea of paying for social networking, so that in the future more people will join when new social networks are made that don’t mine the data of the people
WhatsApp did the $1/yr thing a long time ago. Here is an article from 2016 about them scrapping it. https://venturebeat.com/mobile/whatsapp-subscription/
Like pard68 though, I have no skin in the game and have also given up on social media.
I know people are down on the-social-networking-platform-formerly-known-as-twitter, and I have no skin in the game, I gave up on social networking about a decade ago, but I think this is the model to beat. Forever the FOSS world has said, "if you do not pay for the product, you are the product". Well, here is X trying to make a product you pay for. I do not know their new policy on tracking/ads/spying but even if the…
>Well, here is X trying to make a product you pay for. No, this is an attempt to have it both ways. To do data collection / data brokerage and ALSO charge users for the service.