11–20 of 116 posts
Can they let us pay to remove all sponsored tweets? That's all I want. I'd gladly pay $10/mo. YouTube Red is the best product experience, and it's something I would pay to have elsewhere. I hate ads. I never buy products from ads. They just distract me. I'd pay $1000/yr for a completely ad-free Google. (No search result ads, no AMP, no "McDonalds" in Google Maps, ...)
As someone who was an initial skeptic when this was first announced, I really appreciate what twitter is trying to do with Blue, especially around direct payments to publishers. Any step to get the internet off of the ad-based data-harvesting revenue model is ultimately better for almost all parties.
Who said the data-harvesting would stop?
As someone who was an initial skeptic when this was first announced, I really appreciate what twitter is trying to do with Blue, especially around direct payments to publishers. Any step to get the internet off of the ad-based data-harvesting revenue model is ultimately better for almost all parties.
Canceled my subscription after that email went out. It's a shame. Kinda wish Mozilla had acquired it instead, although they don't have the leverage to promote it like Twitter does.
This seems eerily similar to what people feared could happen to the web in the absence of net neutrality, only with the role of the ISP this time replaced by a platform content referrer. A multi-tiered web: premium lanes for corporate sponsors with money changing hands. > "On iOS and desktop, Twitter Blue members will enjoy a fast-loading, ad-free reading experience when they visit many of their favorite news sites a…
I'm glad to support independent journalism while gaining ad-free access to quality content on a platform I frequent.
Ideally you'd also get ad-free access to Twitter itself, which I would certainly consider paying for. Considering the annual per-user revenue is ~ 12USD [1], this seems like something that would be financially interesting to Twitter. [1] https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/forecast-of-the-day%3A-twitt...
FB, for example, pulls 4-5x the ARPU for US users compared with international. I'd expect twitter to have a similar pattern (though it depends on what 'international' means: Europe is only half the US).
The other issue with this is that the most engaged twitter users are going be the likeliest to sign up for a paid twitter service. These are also going to be the people pulling the average up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ideally you'd also get ad-free access to Twitter itself, which I would certainly consider paying for. Considering the annual per-user revenue is ~ 12USD [1], this seems like something that would be financially interesting to Twitter. [1] https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/forecast-of-the-day%3A-twitt...
That's worldwide. Their revenue per US user from ads is $4/month. Selling an ad-free subscription for $3/month can't work for them just from those numbers, and it gets worse when you consider that Apple will be taking 30% of the latter but not the former.
Can they let us pay to remove all sponsored tweets? That's all I want. I'd gladly pay $10/mo. YouTube Red is the best product experience, and it's something I would pay to have elsewhere. I hate ads. I never buy products from ads. They just distract me. I'd pay $1000/yr for a completely ad-free Google. (No search result ads, no AMP, no "McDonalds" in Google Maps, ...)
Never? Or never actively. i.e. do you unknowingly buy a product at a later date because you at one point saw an ad for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ideally you'd also get ad-free access to Twitter itself, which I would certainly consider paying for. Considering the annual per-user revenue is ~ 12USD [1], this seems like something that would be financially interesting to Twitter. [1] https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/forecast-of-the-day%3A-twitt...
The average across all users is $12, but I suspect the average over people willing to pay for Blue is likely higher than that. It's can be a Catch-22 in some cases. The same people most willing to pay to opt-out are the ones most coveted by advertisers.
Anecdotally someone I am close to doesn't seem to mind ads and regularly buys products from them, I block ads and rarely ever buy products from them. I'd pay for not being served ads in the first place
Can they let us pay to remove all sponsored tweets? That's all I want. I'd gladly pay $10/mo. YouTube Red is the best product experience, and it's something I would pay to have elsewhere. I hate ads. I never buy products from ads. They just distract me. I'd pay $1000/yr for a completely ad-free Google. (No search result ads, no AMP, no "McDonalds" in Google Maps, ...)
Never? Or never actively. i.e. do you unknowingly buy a product at a later date because you at one point saw an ad for it.
This seems eerily similar to what people feared could happen to the web in the absence of net neutrality, only with the role of the ISP this time replaced by a platform content referrer. A multi-tiered web: premium lanes for corporate sponsors with money changing hands. > "On iOS and desktop, Twitter Blue members will enjoy a fast-loading, ad-free reading experience when they visit many of their favorite news sites a…
My understanding of the argument with network neutrality was that the combination of the network provider as a natural monopoly and the network provider's ability to render content inaccessible would result in a fragmented Internet - you can only run so many wires to a house, and if Provider B cut off Content A, you might not get Content A anymore.
I don't see how this is the same thing.