411–420 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agree with most of this, but: > Paying $8 [...] At best this will reduce conversation quality on Twitter Really? That seems completely contrary to my experience. In every online community I've seen, a higher barrier to entry has always been positively correlated with the quality of the conversation. Not saying there won't be downsides to this, but I very much doubt a lower quality of conversation will be one of them.
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.
Sure, but I hope as mainly a reader of Twitter this change comes along with a box I can check that says 'only show Tweets from people I follow and those who are verified'. Overnight, most of my bot issues are fixed. And, any people I don't want to hear from again are easily blocked.
It's a tough engineering problem but surely someone could solve it ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's business, good faith isn't really the issue... this isn't your neighbor asking for some eggs.... >"Burning Twitter to the ground seems quite counterproductive" Good faith or not, it doesn't mean someone can't be misguided. which is why I asked, who cares about their faith??
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…
That's the core problem with this approach. Elon and others have the idea in their head that Twitter is a social graph where people come to interact with each other, and everyone is relatively equal. So every user paying $X/mo to solidify their place in the graph makes some conceptual sense. In reality Twitter is more akin to YouTube than Facebook. A tiny percentage of users are creators while the vast majority are c…
There is a very big difference between Twitter and YouTube, and it's obvious once you know it.
Look at the most popular people on twitter: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-followed_Twitte...
All celebrities outside of twitter.
Then look at YouTube: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-subscribed_YouT...
Almost all made famous by YouTube.
Twitter has no real "content creators", YouTube does.
The good: Twitter should not be editorally curating people through verification, making verification only about ID and being a real person is a broadly good change, as long as it's not necessary for participation. Brands, celebrities, those in the public eye could benefit from this. Needs to be implemented with care and ideally with a branding change so as not to confuse users as the semantics change. The bad: $8 is…
There's nothing good. When everyone can buy a checkmark, it becomes nothing. The next step is "only allow replies from blue checkmarks" both are bad ideas, and solely because of musk's obsession with bots. Without a mob to prop up people with retweets, twitter will be useless. You cant have the good parts without the ugly parts
Where does it say everyone can buy a checkmark without verification? I read this as everyone can be verified, which is a good thing. And, it will go a long way to killing off the bots.
The good: Twitter should not be editorally curating people through verification, making verification only about ID and being a real person is a broadly good change, as long as it's not necessary for participation. Brands, celebrities, those in the public eye could benefit from this. Needs to be implemented with care and ideally with a branding change so as not to confuse users as the semantics change. The bad: $8 is…
Will they actually be doing ID verification? Binance is one of the investors, so it might just be "if you can pay $8 you can be whoever you want, at least for a while".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's more like the peasants will get a useless blue checkmark and the Lords will get a tag, which eventually will have the same meaning as the checkmark today. Everything stays the same but everyone pays. "There will be a secondary tag below the name for someone who is a public figure, which is already the case for politicians" https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1587527711228149765?s=46...
lmao such a populist move then. Make it sound like what was before a privilege for the few now is in reach for the working man, but actually there is now another type of privilege that it is unreachable unless you're a Very Important Person. All the Musk fans, happy to see their messiah disrupt an institution, played like an absolute fiddle. This is hilarious. The king is dead, long live the king!
Or just a person likely to be impersonated for various scams or other social attacks? How does anyone see a blue check as anything other than that?