921–930 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So you want to instead do the exact opposite – ask the consumers to pay and fund your creators with that money. I think it's only Onlyfans that can get away with such a business model.
Spotify?
[0] https://www.theverge.com/2022/10/25/23423510/spotify-total-s...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it is true of most. If your identity is worth verifying by Twitter, it is apparently worth something to Twitter. If you wanted to prove that your twitter account was you, you wouldn't need their permission, right? Surely you could sign a file on your Twitter account with your PGP key or whatever.
This has always been the bullshit story Twitter tells itself about the blue check. In reality, the value of the check has practically nothing to do with verifying identities, and everything to do with conferring status on people "notable" enough to qualify. The energy source for that status is, in fact, people like King, Swift, LeBron, Obama (and Trump), J. Lo and Jimmy Fallon; Twitter trades off the idea that the ch…
The other group are those who have decent followings who have wanted a blue check and have used the imposters argument as a reason for deserving one to protect their followers. In reality it’s a thinly veiled attempt to get what they believe is a symbol conferring status.
The whole thing is pretty pathetic and funny to watch and reminds me of the sneetches.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stephen King would pay $8, Elon Musk would earn $8 x the number of users that paid.
Stephen King would not pay. He doesn't need Twitter. He can spend that time writing another book convert to a substack or something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
if you only proof the price was $20 is because "journalists" reported it as so then I question your ability to critical think and judge facts because "journalists" report false things every day all day there is little to no evidence it was ever really $20, and even less evidence that Elon's mind was changed by Stephen King of all people... Who care what Stephen King thinks? More likely it was always going to be $8
This "5d chess" stuff is approaching the level of faith that qanon followers have - nothing is ever wrong, everything is always going according to The Plan, when it deviates it's because The Plan has changed and you weren't informed, Hillary was arrested and sent to gitmo but unfortunately she was cloned, etc, etc. Look, he's spitballing ideas and playing it a little fast and loose. It may pay off, it might not - it…
I do not count reporting based on anonymous sources as evidence of anything, Elon never said, and no official at Twitter ever said the price as going to be $20, so I have no evidence to believe outside of Rumor from sources that have been showed to be negatively biased on the subject and widely inaccurate on the subject, so why should I trust their $20 figure?
I trust traditional news sources less than I do the government today, for which I would trust a Cartel bass more than the government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. It's a movie from 2019. Stephen King appears in it. I agree: his cultural impact in American is significant enough that books he wrote nearly 40 years ago are the bases for moves that set opening records today. It's pretty nuts!
We were talking about Twitter. Twitter needs LeBron James and Taylor Swift and the latest Kpop stars. It has a sort of symbiotic relationship with world leaders and journalists. But it does not really need people like James Woods and Kevin Sorbo (to pick two from the other end of the political spectrum). Same goes for 90s grunge bands or 80s hair bands. I fully expect those guys to pay to try to stay relevant. And I…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> Anywhere Stephen King writes, he'll have an audience. Is that really true? Suppose King goes to a new social platform. Sure, I might install that app, but without a critical mass or others on that platform, what are the chances I actually check that app frequently?
Yes, this is really true. People on HN will see less of Stephen King, to the extent that they're not part of his audience (maybe HN is more of an Ari Aster crowd). But that doesn't matter: people aren't spending hundreds of millions of dollars on 2019 movies based on books he wrote in the 1980s because he's driving lots of Twitter engagement. This whole discussion about King's relevance is super weird. I think it's j…
I don’t know a single person in real life who uses the site at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes his name is @dril and he is more powerful than 100 of your Misters Beast or Pewdies Pie
@dril seems to come close (I didn't know him, probably because he only has 1.7M followers). On twitter he's only at place 5,391 ( https://socialblade.com/twitter/user/dril ). MrBeast and PewDiePie are both millionaires ($40M-$100M) thanks to YouTube, and each have 111M followers, that's around 65x @dril. Can you state exactly what you mean with @dril == 100 * Mister Beast?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is pulled out of his butt, the F150 sells 3/4 of a million a year (just the f150!) and makes on the low end a gross profit of $10k per sold. The model x sold about 7.5k cars in 2021, way down from the 20-30k it was selling each year. OK let's say it sold $30k, and Tesla made a profit of $100k (more than the car sells for) for each car. That's still less than 50% of the F150 yearly profit. LOL.
Comparing it to the F150 is idiotic. That's the most sold car in the US and in a different segment. Compare it to other comparable cars in the same segment and it looks pretty damn good. Lower volume high margin cars are really worth it for companies and Ford wishes it had an EV in that classed that sold have as well. The Model X sells in numbers not unlike Mach E while having double the price.
The profit MARGIN of the model x is great tho.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes his name is @dril and he is more powerful than 100 of your Misters Beast or Pewdies Pie
@dril seems to come close (I didn't know him, probably because he only has 1.7M followers). On twitter he's only at place 5,391 ( https://socialblade.com/twitter/user/dril ). MrBeast and PewDiePie are both millionaires ($40M-$100M) thanks to YouTube, and each have 111M followers, that's around 65x @dril. Can you state exactly what you mean with @dril == 100 * Mister Beast?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In reality Twitter is more akin to YouTube than Facebook. 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 is basically a broadcast platform for people who matter "in the real world". It gives them an easy way to reach their audience on their own terms without any middlemen. As a centralized platform, Twitter creates more value for those who follow than those who broadcast. Because the broadcasters are primarily known for something other than the "content" they create on the platform, they would find their audienc…
Twitter was born out of the short "status updates" fad at the time, on both Myspace and eventually Facebook.
Those were born out of MSN Messenger and other IM programs at the time that had customizable social profiles of sorts - including an updatable Status that was shown as a subtitle in your contacts' respective friends lists.
I remember the general sentiment of Twitter when it started was that the short character count (120 characters or whatever it started with) was a fun novelty, nothing more. It wasn't seen as a "social network".
Twitter gets its name in part from the saying "A little birdie told me ..." intersected with the fact that your phone twitches (vibrates) when you receive an update. It mimicked the other popular app names at the time that often omitted a vowel, such as 'flickr'. The original site was thus called twttr.com. The whole point was to be short, concise, non-serious communication. "Yo" tried to take this to the extreme several years later and ultimately failed (or pivoted, not sure which).
When Twitter started gaining traction, it was clear that more involved discourse was nearly impossible with the shorter character count, thus the limit was bumped up to what it is now (240 or 280 or something). The initial response was, understandably, negative. People predicted at the time that this would devolve the platform into another battlegrounds for shouting matches and arguing just as Facebook had. In hindsight, they were mostly correct.
Threads were also added to improve cohesion within lengthy conversations, and those features alone are now what form the core of Twitter's major feature set.
It's worth noting that Twitter hasn't changed much, which is pretty widely regarded as a feature in itself and can earn long term retention even with on-the-fence users (see: Steam).
However, this is mostly just my recollection of events.