Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

LincHayes t1_iuvixwz wrote

I would try $1 or $2 a month to see if it eliminates the bots, spam, trolls, racists, bullies, and other asshole categories. Having to pay would also serve as some identity verification, unless they allow payments with anonymous gift cards.

If you have to use a real credit or debit card, that would clean it up almost immediately.

Of course, that would push out users based on economics, which is the opposite of supporting free speech and expression for all.

So then you have a free tier so that the poors stay "down" in the same tier as the bots, spam, racists, bullies and other assholes, and only the people who can afford it (and have access to banking) are allowed to socialize with others who can afford the higher level.

This lays the groundwork for a dystopian movie script where the poors are forced to live at ground level breathing the toxic air, and the wealthy live in high rises above it all breathing the cleaner air. The poors can only follow the paid memebers. If they want to communicate with paid members, the paid members have to allow it. Paid members can also block all the poors so that the poors can't even see that they have an account.

Of course I'm just pontificating...let's see how it all plays out.

9

CremeImportant2347 t1_iuvz11l wrote

This is an interesting point. In my mind there’s a distinction between being able to read tweets and tweeting. It could be free to have an account and read tweets/follow accounts but $1/month to tweet. Or you get X number of free tweets per month. That would solve the issue of access to Twitter for impoverished populations and reduce the prevalence of bots/trolls.

Or a payment system could be that accounts purchase Tweets, I.e. you buy 100 tweets for $1. Bots and trolls are only harmful to the extent they can tweet.

My theory is that Musk will try to solve the bot problem by initially shrinking the platform and reducing the cost of operating it. Then try to rebuild the user population with new/better features that people will want to pay for- just like newspaper/magazine subscription. Hopefully the end result is a Twitter that is a highly positive cash flow business.

For the bodybuilders among us, Twitter is an obese and sick business that needs to undergo a major cut cycle before focusing on bulking. The key is Musk needs to trim the fat without losing too much muscle.

3

yzT- t1_iuwriwx wrote

Dota 2 and CS:GO are the clear example that a small fee doesn't prevent "bots, spam, trolls, racists, bullies, and other asshole categories"

2

CremeImportant2347 t1_iv3q73g wrote

Interesting. I’m not familiar with either can you elaborate?

1

yzT- t1_iv4uis4 wrote

A few years ago, Valve added "premium matchmaking" to deal with people using multiple accounts (smurfs) and with people who were often banned for using cheats.

To be "premium", you had to associate a valid phone number with your account. At some point, this even became the standard way of playing a ranked game, meaning that you can't play now without a phone number associated with your account.

Funnily though, this has not prevented people from smurfing or using cheats in any way. The cost of a new phone number is ridiculous, so it's this $8 fee for Twitter blue check.

1

[deleted] t1_iuvkr74 wrote

[deleted]

0

LincHayes t1_iuvmc3t wrote

I agree that the internet should be a free place...as in access to the internet should be made freely available to everyone. However, Twitter is not the internet. It's not a utility, or public trust. It's a website. A privately owned website.

So, I agree, making Twitter a paid service doesn't mean others can't use the internet, any more than charging for the Wall Street Journal stifles other people's speech.

But it certainly puts Elon in a position of embracing his own hypocrisy. He cannot do both..make Twitter free and open for everyone and everything with limited moderation, and also make a profit.

Reddit figured that a few years ago, and they have transitioned nicely.

Edited: More to add.

5

OriginalCompetitive t1_iuw1cid wrote

“Free” speech doesn’t mean “no money”-free, it just means not restricted by content or viewpoint.

1

Torrall t1_iuw7s47 wrote

"like Twitter where public consensus is being measured and created"

​

Less than a quarter of Americans check twitter. It does not create public consensus

2

[deleted] t1_iuw9emd wrote

[deleted]

1

Torrall t1_iuwa14t wrote

Just because journalists talk there doesnt mean it has the power you think it does.

2

BandicootKind705 OP t1_iuwk7dr wrote

I think you're right. It's not very important to use twitter for a big majority. Doesn't impact day to day. But it's still massive among people in power, and it does have a good sizeable base of real people too. Technically Twitter could be used by people to create pressure campaigns on policy and real political power around important issues like health care and the wealth gap and wars. But that'll never happen. It will only create buzz and fights around hot button issues and never impact people in a real positive way for them to join.

1