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

631–640 of 1001 posts

Re: Twitter Blue for $8/Month

#631

Post by slg »

empressplay wrote: post #401
slg wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>making verification only about ID and being a real person is a broadly good change Where does he say there will be any verification around ID? Twitter needs to make sure that I can't just name my account @WhiteHouseCommunications and pay $8 to get a blue checkmark. The whole point of the blue checkmark was to personally review those accounts to make sure they are who they say they are. Is Twitter still going to put…

They don't need to, your 'full' name is just locked to whatever's on your payment method. Problem solved.

That isn't how verification currently works and I can't imagine that is how Twitter would want it to work in the future. People change their display name all the time on Twitter and can even change their username. Plus Facebook has already shown that real name policies are hard and can cause user pushback and that was with a community that already is more lined up with our real life identities. Pseudonymous accounts are a huge part of Twitter.

Re: Twitter Blue for $8/Month

#632

Post by jjfoooo5 »

mymythisisthis wrote: post #199
Imnimo wrote: post #152

I don't really grasp the value proposition here. I can have "Priority in replies, mentions & search, which is essential to defeat spam/scam", but is that valuable to me or to my audience? If I'm a regular no-name user, do I care if I'm lost in replies and search? And if I'm the Steven Kings of the world, that other users want to see content from, does it do more harm to me or to Twitter if my posts are hidden because…

For people like Steven King, if he posts something on Facebook his fans will re-post it on Twitter, and vice-versa. If too many things trend on other platforms, but not on Twitter, people will leave Twitter because it is not keeping up.

It's a great point. There have been several replies ITT along the lines of, "if Twitter goes away, what platform will Stephen King post his content?"

As you point out, the answer is "all of the relevant ones, with very little effort on his part"

Re: Twitter Blue for $8/Month

#633

Post by rconti »

pie420 wrote: post #568
pkulak wrote: post #454

Elon is the PM from hell. Has some shower thought and starts throwing tickets on everyone's board 45 minutes later. This is why the Model X has those silly doors.

The model X is also probably one of the most profitable and iconic cars in the modern era.

I'm sure it's actually the least successful vehicle Tesla sells.

Re: Twitter Blue for $8/Month

#634

Post by notatoad »

oska wrote: post #448
enumjorge wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Where does Stephen King go if he's not on twitter ? (Genuine question, not rhetorical)

anywhere or nowhere else. do you think tweeting is really an essential part of Stephen King's professional or personal life? he could just stop.

he's a famous author. he's got a website, a publisher with an advertising budget, and other social media channels. his audience will follow him. he can post on facebook, his mailing list, his own website, or none of the above.

Re: Twitter Blue for $8/Month

#635

Post by kasey_junk »

paxys wrote: post #570
ekianjo wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As if King cant pay 20 dollars.

As if Elon needs 20 dollars.

Lol. Elon has made possibly the worst lbo deal in the last decade. He needs to juice this deal like crazy to not lose a ton of money.

Just the notoriety of convincing Steven king to pay for a blue checkmark is worth outsized dollars to him and nothing to King.

Re: Twitter Blue for $8/Month

#636

Post by bandyaboot »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #449
soulofmischief wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Each and every one of these arguments seem to be forgetting the fact that $8/mo is a ton of money in some areas, prohibitively so, and this policy is exclusive of such journalists, users etc. Blue checks should never be pay to play. They weren't designed that way. The problem is the ambiguity of the blue check leads to arbitrage that it seems all parties are interested in cashing in on. If Twitter is our modern Greek…

> Each and every one of these arguments seem to be forgetting the fact that $8/mo is a ton of money in some areas, prohibitively so, and this policy is exclusive of such journalists, users etc. And those areas don't proportionally don't matter to Twitter. Even so, the very next tweet by Musk , in reply to the linked one, says: > Price adjusted by country proportionate to purchasing power parity So that addresses this…

> It's ironic how fast things change :).

That goes both ways.

Re: Twitter Blue for $8/Month

#637

Post by notatoad »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #220
jjfoooo6 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In other words, it is that it's going to be very difficult for users to intuitively understand what "half ads" means and why they should pay for it. It's a completely nonsensical compromise. Musk's product ideas for Twitter seems to assume that what everyone wants is for Twitter to be more complex, with more knobs to fiddle with.

There's a simple way to make this legible to the user: instead of slashing ad frequency, eliminate half of ad surface . I.e. if there are N places on the page where ads are being served, turn off half of them for the paying users. This will be an obvious difference, and remain so even as the ad intensity/frequency increases.

but there aren't N places on the page where ads are shown, there's one place: in the feed, at an unspecified frequency as you scroll. twitter doesn't have any ad surfaces to eliminate.

Re: Twitter Blue for $8/Month

#638

Post by avar »

memish wrote: post #529
sangnoir wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet Musk was in his replies, haggling.

He wasn't haggling. He was mocking the blue check status symbol in King's face and audience. $8 makes it cheaper than a Netflix subscription for something that previously exclusive and had no dollar value attached to it. It was literally unbuyable.

> [...] had no dollar value attached to it. It was literally unbuyable.

$44 billion seem to be the going rate.

Re: Twitter Blue for $8/Month

#639

Post by ARandomerDude »

peter422 wrote: post #521
oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're famous, you'll almost certainly have a twitter account, although there are obviously exceptions. The same just doesn't seem to go for YouTube. Creating content on YT is a lot more time-consuming than creating it on Twitter, of course.

This is why YouTube is a platform with value and Twitter isn't.

Some dude just paid $44B for Twitter. Presumably that means it has value.

Re: Twitter Blue for $8/Month

#640

Post by thaumasiotes »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #345
thaumasiotes wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and the market isn't serving lower barrier / better experience options it did a month, year or decade ago. That's irrelevant, and very often false. But the options offered by the market at any given time are generally better at higher price points, which is, oddly, exactly what the commenter upthread was outraged by.

They wrote: > It's a higher barrier to having a good experience, which I can't think of many successful examples of to be honest. The way I read the poster is that they think being asked to pay more will create worse experience, which is implied to be stupid. Except it isn't, it's literally what's happening in every market all the time. Getting people to pay more for worse product is entirely normal, and the way it u…

> They wrote:

>> It's a higher barrier to having a good experience, which I can't think of many successful examples of to be honest.

> The way I read the poster is that they think being asked to pay more will create worse experience

That is something they say, but the quote you pulled isn't related to it. You were looking for this one:

>> At best this will reduce conversation quality on Twitter

But they never bother to justify that.

> which is implied to be stupid.

The quote you pulled is stupid. Nothing is more common than successful examples of placing a higher barrier in front of the good experience than there is in front of the bad experience.

Post reply on HN