Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twitter Blue for $8/Month

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 1001 posts

Re: Twitter Blue for $8/Month

#391

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

lupire wrote: post #309
oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who needs one that cannot afford $8/month? Does anyone really need it? A lot of freelance writers, in my experience. > It is not just verification though. Verification is just part of the subscription. That's a fair point, but why not make verification free (or a one-off payment) and remove it from the subscription feature package?

What happens if you freelance write without a blue check?

A bad actor can impersonate you and damage your reputation, commit scams in your name, etc.

Re: Twitter Blue for $8/Month

#392

Post by TeMPOraL »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #380
TeMPOraL wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Half of ads is strictly more valuable than all of them. Whether or not it's worth $8 is another question, but people still forget it's all a supplier-driven market: there is, and is not going to be, an option to pay $8 and get no ads. You choose out of what's being made available.

Strictly more valuable, sure. But if it's only 10% less annoying, there's very little incentive to buy. And adblock is an option sitting in the wings.

> But if it's only 10% less annoying, there's very little incentive to buy.

Right. But that $8 doesn't only buy you halving the ad load, but also all the other things like better reach and the "I'm a paying user, I'm better than you non-paying ones" checkmark. I mean, if it works on GitHub...

> And adblock is an option sitting in the wings.

Yes, but! Most people use Twitter through the app, and blocking ads there isn't as simple as having your tech-savvy friend install uBlock Origin in your browser. Adblocking in apps is, even for techies, something between extremely sophisticated and downright impossible.

Re: Twitter Blue for $8/Month

#394

Post by madeofpalk »

apeace wrote: post #234
thorum wrote: post #24

Blue checkmarks are not just about verification and extra features. They’re a status symbol. They mean you are cool and notable enough to deserve one according the shadowy and mysterious Twitter checkmark committee. If they become a commodity that anyone with a little money can buy, they lose a big part of their appeal to the average person.

I initially thought this too, but then I remembered: a lot of people on social media care very much about how many followers they get, how many likes they get, etc. Under the new plan, you will get priority in replies, mentions, and search. I think that will have a lot of value for people addicted to likes. The checkmarks won't be a status symbol anymore, but the masses will want their tweets prioritized.

At the moment I think it's kind of embarrassing to see someone edit a tweet, because it means they've been paying for Twitter Blue.

Re: Twitter Blue for $8/Month

#395

Post by enumjorge »

dan-robertson wrote: post #285

The dynamics on Twitter are quite weird. There’s a small number of users with potentially lots of followers for whom Twitter is an important part of their work or life. If you’re a journalist, being on Twitter is basically part of your job so maybe you should have to pay a bit more just like the customer of some business software ($100 pa seems pretty cheap there). Indeed maybe media publications should be paying for…

To your point here's a tweet from Stephen King that was making the rounds where he protests the idea that he should be paying Twitter instead of the reverse: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1587312517679878144

Re: Twitter Blue for $8/Month

#396

Post by seydor »

wobbly_bush wrote: post #384
seydor wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i m not really seeing it. The old money (journalists of mainstream newspapers) can leave and take all the audiences with them. Their audience is there for the narrative and ideology, not because they are fond of Twitter. Twitter does not have a "native" audience, because it claims to be a platform. If they engaged deeper with content producers (like substack does) they might have. It's a solely megaphone, hence usele…

> Old money reigns supreme because the "new" voices are not independent Are you implying there are no legitimate discussions between non-checkmarked users today on Twitter? That there is only a leader(check-marked users) and follower dynamic?

not talking about checkmarks

twitter is propped up by the mainstream media, not the other way around. if mainstream journalists leave, twitter will be tumblr. for new twitterers, twitter is not a platform to stay on, but a bridge to graduate to somwhere else or build your audience and move it elsewhere (a book, podcast, youtube, articles in mainstream newspapers etc).

For example, one can say that Joe rogan used to have a 'home' on youtube, now on spotify. Who has a permanent home on twitter?

Re: Twitter Blue for $8/Month

#397

Post by joegahona »

concinds wrote: post #203
drawfloat wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's not a higher barrier to entry – you can read and respond freely. It's a higher barrier to having a good experience, which I can't think of many successful examples of to be honest.

> respond freely You can already filter out non-verified mentions and replies. Presumably that's not going away, and will be used by far more people after this change. It very much is a barrier to entry.

> You can already filter out non-verified mentions and replies.

How?

Re: Twitter Blue for $8/Month

#398

Post by yamtaddle »

TigeriusKirk wrote: post #368
yamtaddle wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some blue checks need Twitter (mid-level youtubers, for instance). Some don't (Stephen King, for instance). In either case, Twitter needs the blue checks because they are, to a large degree, the reason non-blue-checks visit and engage with Twitter. I can see someone like Stephen King being annoyed at having to pay anything when his presence is probably helping Twitter quite a bit to begin with.

> Twitter needs the blue checks because they are, to a large degree, the reason non-blue-checks visit and engage with Twitter. That may have been true at one time, but I'm not so sure it is any more.

I'm struggling to understand how that would not be true. Nobody follows a Twitter link to see what Joe Blow posted about anything. They follow them to see what someone they've heard of posted. People create accounts to follow blue checks, or to try to network with them. I get that there are several market segments for Twitter but ~all of them are pretty dependent on blue checks to drive eyeballs to the site and to keep people coming back, as far as I can tell. If people just want a group chat with other nobodies, Whatsapp exists.

Thing is, the "blue checks" aren't all Stephen King level famous. If you're doing much notable at all, and using the platform, you've probably got a blue check. I do not, for the record—I'm not sure I even have an account?—but I see an awful lot of them on fairly niche but interesting & active personal accounts. Take them out and the best content goes back to being "I'm a Twitter Shitter!" kinds of stuff, like in the very early days—and the novelty for that is long gone.

If these posters stay but let their blue checks lapse, we go back to having an impersonation problem, which is mostly a problem for Twitter, which they may want to solve. Perhaps for accounts that are likely to be impersonated they could introduce some kind of free verification system....

Re: Twitter Blue for $8/Month

#399

Post by bdougherty »

rideontime wrote: post #320
memish wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It elicits shrieks because it’s more about leveling the playing field than making money."

How does adding a new subscription feature and changing verification checkmarks to "secondary tags" level the playing field? https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1587527711228149765

Because previously you had to be blessed to get a bluecheck, now you just have to pay. Way more people have the means to pay than were blessed.

Re: Twitter Blue for $8/Month

#400

Post by Karrot_Kream »

freejazz wrote: post #381
Karrot_Kream wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should one presume bad faith here?

Why would you presume good faith here?

Burning Twitter to the ground seems quite counterproductive, given the debt that was assumed for the sale. Misguided sure, but bad faith? I generally tend to assume that most people do things in good faith.
Post reply on HN