Why a Blue check mark is now $8 on Twitter and Elon Musk's Next Steps - A piece of speculative business non-fiction

Submitted by BandicootKind705 t3_ykvy5x in Futurology

Is it likely Twitter is eventually going to be a paid service for everyone, at a price-point much less than $8?

Currently there are about 300K verified accounts on Twitter. The $8 fee would bring in a paltry 2.4million dollars every month - pocket change for a company with a 5 billion dollar annual revenue. So is the charge levied so eventually millions of people will buy the blue check mark for $8 a month - who would pay such a sum for a service like Twitter? I don't think that's the game here.

Elon's number 1 concern with Twitter has been to first make it free of spams and bots. But it doesnt make sense to charge money to blue check accounts if the aim is to reduce the number of spam accounts - the bot problem has never been with blue check accounts, which are more or less regulated in the public eye.

Well, perhaps the $8 charge is not supposed to bring in revenue, nor do away with the bot problem right now. Perhaps, all it is supposed to do at the moment is create the idea first among the general public that Twitter is going to be a paid service. For everyone. Obviously the charge for the general public later will not be $8. It will have to be much, much less, to the tune of a dollar per month or even less. After a section of Twitter has been paying $8 for a while, it will not seem too much for most of us to shell out a dollar a month. It will seem fair. So instead of making everyone pay at once at different tiers (which many wouldn't because right now it is given that Twitter is, and supposed to be, free), make it gradual.

Charging everyone a minimum sub fee will help with the bot problem significantly, as one would have to shell out thousands or millions of dollar every month to keep spam operations going. It will also generate significant revenue for Twitter - if at least 250 million of Twitter's 450 million accounts currently are real, and at least a 100 million accounts stay after the subscription modality is introduced - that is still a 100 million dollars a month of clean revenue. That money can be used to pay content creators, and will pay for the regulation of spam accounts or actual hate speech, even more.

A win-win on both ends. Not sure if this is exactly what will happen, but speculative business non fiction is a fun genre!

0

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

8to24 t1_iuvhobu wrote

Growing up I was taught that as a consumer I had the power of choice. That I didn't owe my time or money to any brand. Rather, brands had to work to earn my patronage.

It is a concept I feel has been lost. People have adopted lifestyles that are dependent on specific goods and services. Choice and any sense of consumer autonomy seems to be gone. When gas/petrol prices go up people complain excessively yet continue to buy it insisting there simply is no choice. That no alternatives exist. Ironically if a meaningful amount of people would just start using public transportation, carpooling, cycling, etc the price of gas/petrol would in fact come down.

No one has to use Twitter. Elon Musk owns it and he can do whatever he wants with it. He can charge a million dollars for a blue check mark. Consumers need to take some of their leverage back and stop acting powerless. Apps, social media platforms, websites, etc that I don't like I don't use. It is that simple. If one has an issue with moderation on Reddit stop using Reddit. If one doesn't want to pay Elon to be verified on Twitter, don't. These are very easy choices.

57

Rich_Elderberry5153 t1_iuwrwvk wrote

The phenomena you are describing is an elastic vs inelastic good. Elastic goods are easily replaced with alternatives or are simply not a necessary purchase, so when the price gets too high people stop buying. Inelastic goods, like gas, are needed and will be bought more or less despite the price.

8

Cofil19 t1_ivoiuzu wrote

It seems like some of you are trying to dismiss a good point with a superficial use of simplistic notions you learned in economy 101. Short term demand for gas may be very inelastic but if I may suggest, open back your econ book and you will also find in the long term demand notion that market agents can turn to other alternatives in the long run. Also, to the original's comment point, it seems like part of this inelasticity is in fact due to a limited mentality (preferences) rather than limited alternatives.

2

8to24 t1_iux5wf3 wrote

>Inelastic goods, like gas, are needed and will be bought more or less despite the price.

One makes choices about where the live. That choice influences whether or not they need a car and how much they need to drive. Additionally people decide what type of cars they buy. SUVs and Trucks use a lot more gas than sedans and wagons.

I don't see gas as an inelastic good. People just need to make better choices. If one moves to a suburb that isn't connected to the city they work in via some form of public transportation they are committing themselves to buying a car & lots of gas. If that same person buys a truck or SUV they are committing themselves to buying crazy amounts of gas.

Inelastic would be food, water, electricity, etc. Things people absolutely have to buy.

−5

Rich_Elderberry5153 t1_iuxeoh9 wrote

If you don’t see gas as an inelastic good, you’ve never taken an Econ class, and you are not worth discussing this issue with any further. Gas is the #1 example professors use when discussing inelastic goods

8

D0KHA t1_iuypggl wrote

Homie is really out here like “so gas is getting expensive…you should probably move somewhere you don’t need as much gas. Have you tried CHANGING CITIES to fix the problem?”

2

8to24 t1_iuyrhsn wrote

No, I am implying poor choices were made off rip. The cost of gas changes all the time. The current prices were inevitable. They will go down some, let up some, rinse and repeat.

−1

j_mence t1_iv7prbl wrote

While fundamentally you have a good point, reality is a totally different world and one many of us spend our day in and day out experiencing.

The word fair, or people saying "not right" or " if you don't like it don't do it" is not how or what most people base their choices on.

Many individuals are born in rural areas or literally (I'm actually being literal) just outside a city yet unable to afford anything closer and have some type of debt, mortgage, car payment; these are liabilities and unless you bought a 1969 Shelby or a home on a body of water your most likely in debt.

The banking and financial system isn't the most inclusive world either and literally giving out money to everyone was tried and FAILED.

When HUMANS are born anywhere they need to be raised to make it to a point where their prefrontal cortex is able to make real choices; not, am I going to eat what mom and dad made or am I gaming or tick-tocing this really cool Micheal Jackson dance?

Do YOU choose to be born, no. You can choose to live, but being born isn't a choice that ANYONE can or has made...wow, guess what? This means they are, in some way (this is factual), a product of their environment. No matter how much savings, how altruistic an individual may be there are many many factors that go into; " if you don't like the price of gas just move."

I think I explained it well enough. I'm basing this off of many things, but history, facts, evolution, religion (you'd be surprised how much the religious institutions understand and adhere to many of my examples) and just the eye test.

Cheers.

1

YovngSqvirrel t1_iuxfhd4 wrote

Gas is an inelastic good. You can choose to live somewhere like a city to reduce your personal use of gas, but you would still use the same amount each month, which is what elasticity is talking about. Change in behavior due to price fluctuations. People do not normally move houses due to gas price increases/decreases. And for a majority of people, there is no feasible alternative to driving. The BLS even uses gas as as example of inelasticity.

> Generally, in a recession, income and consumption have a tendency to fall. So despite the economic climate, great changes in price per gallon of gasoline, and the corresponding quarterly variation in dollar expenditures for gasoline, households still consumed the same amount of gasoline. This steady consumption indicates that households did not dramatically change their behavior in response to changes in gasoline prices. Instead of a shared road trip with friends, biking instead of driving, or other consumption changes in response to price increases, people likely continued their gas-consumption habits. Something about gasoline is different than other goods that create this static consumer behavior.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-5/using-gasoline-data-to-explain-inelasticity.htm

−1

8to24 t1_iuxgm6u wrote

>You can choose to live somewhere like a city to reduce your personal use of gas, but you would still use the same amount each month,

Tens of millions of people don't own cars. They pay nothing for Gasoline.

2

YovngSqvirrel t1_iuxi5vg wrote

A good's price elasticity of demand is a measure of how sensitive the quantity demanded is to its price. When the price rises, quantity demanded falls for almost any good, but it falls more for some than for others.

The fact that millions of people don’t use gas has nothing to do with price elasticity. Are you buying more gas when it becomes cheaper? Are you buying less gas when it is expensive? No. So the good is inelastic.

2

Xeran69 t1_iv1zz7j wrote

That's probably the best way to explain it good shit man.

2

[deleted] t1_iuwsiho wrote

Although technically true but having a real alternative without quiting does not exist for some things. If reddit ever starts charging is the day I stop using it. But to me there is no real alternative to me that could replace reddit in terms of news. So the hard question isn't about can you quit, but what other real alternative is there besides quiting.

3

8to24 t1_iux6fgw wrote

My daily google news feed has all the same news stories Reddit does. Once you search enough science, technology, international affairs, etc news the algorithm adjusts and broadens your feed.

2

[deleted] t1_iux8bfz wrote

I know there are other news outlets but to me, Reddit is better than all of them. I should not have to do a bunch of searching for the algorithm to adjust for me. It should be easy and ready to use.

2

JimTheSatisfactory t1_iuvizj2 wrote

Who fucking cares about twitter?

Let it go the way of myspace and get on with your lives.

22

panzerbjrn t1_iuvjra2 wrote

I would love for Facebook and twitter to go the way of MySpace....

10

Otherwise-Anxiety-58 t1_iuvjzac wrote

If someone else bought Twitter I am sure there wouldn't be this much focus on it.

6

Cpleofcrazies2 t1_iuvshes wrote

Mainly because that someone else might not be spouting all the crap Elon is

8

gibertot t1_iv1byr0 wrote

Seriously just seeing people absolutely lose it at the idea of their favorite celebrities being charged a fee for a checkmark is ridiculous. Stephen King subreddit is losing its mind rn. When really who gives a flying fuck? I'm on that sub cause I like his books idgaf if he's mad he has to pay a small fee for a Twitter check mark.

1

BandicootKind705 OP t1_iuvlajq wrote

Yes. I think people feel have expectations with Elon, that he can make it a truly great public square type social media. Its a historical challenge and it's interesting to watch a historical man of culture taking it on.

−6

WendellVaughn_Quasar t1_iuvtiav wrote

> a historical man of culture

JFC, stop drinking the Muskaide already - dude is a giant petulant man-baby that fails upward, not some paragon of virtue.

7

Haikouden t1_iuxgsu2 wrote

More like people expect him to burn it to the ground by accident

1

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

TheRealDestian t1_iuwfn1s wrote

MMOs like World of Warcraft have been battling bots for years despite having a sub fee. The bot companies pay for subs with stolen credit cards. They’ll do the same thing here.

6

BandicootKind705 OP t1_iuwljoi wrote

Oh well then thats not good. Is it as bad as in Twitter though? If its much more manageable and better than currently, that might still be worth it. A big wrinkle in this alleged business plan scenario, nevertheless.

1

TheRealDestian t1_iuws9iz wrote

It depends.

If other countries want to sow misinformation on Twitter badly enough, they’d finance it.

3

CremeImportant2347 t1_iuwqpky wrote

Interesting. Why would you want a bot on WoW that uses a stolen credit card? Wouldn’t you lose the account once the card is frozen?

I don’t know jack about WoW so that may be a dumb question.

1

TheRealDestian t1_iuwsjbc wrote

They have bot programs that farm in game gold to sell for real money. These are throwaway accounts so they don’t care when they get shut down.

2

pkdomo t1_iuvndz7 wrote

I deleted it with Musk’s Pelosi attack retweet. I give these guys a true chance every time and they fail (without fail). My two lame accounts are gone.

5

mr_friend_computer t1_iuvyrho wrote

Thanks for reminding me to delete my twitter account. I keep forgetting to do it.

Seriously though - "we" are the products for media companies like twitter. They harvest our personal information and resell it, right? We know this. This is just additional revenue streaming for them. Why should I pay to be somebody's product? They don't provide a useful enough service for people like me to keep the service.

When that happens, the masses stop using it. You can have tons of followers, but if they are all bots because the masses have pretty much lefts, well... what do you really have at that point?

5

fafefifof t1_iuwlj39 wrote

Well the whole point of the original post is to reverse that business model. Facebook as a free product led to us being the product by being dependent on publicity to create revenue. But if Facebook, or twitter, had proposed a paying service and proven a feasible business model from paying customers, we might’ve dodged this weird human-data-as-a-product clown ass model we’re stuck with at the moment

2

mr_friend_computer t1_iuypzqj wrote

I get that, but it's going to end up as us paying to be human-data-as-a-product at this point.

I'd rather deprive the company of both sets of income in this case.

1

zeptillian t1_iuz0tqg wrote

The point of the post is to point out just how infeasible that idea is.

5 billion in yearly revenue vs getting people to pay and earning 1.2 billion a year instead? I don't think so.

1

Southern-Trip-1102 t1_iuvgbsw wrote

I doubt that 20% of current real Twitter users would be willing to bother to pay a dollar to keep using it. At best 10% imo.

4

Zoovembie t1_iv8cf0c wrote

I certainly wouldn't give my credit card number to a site that just took a chainsaw to its maintenance/security staff, for obvious reasons.

1

Joseluki t1_iuweeqc wrote

This is not about bots, it is about Musk having bought twitter and transferring a lot of his debt into it so now twitter (that was barely profitable before musk) is in the red numbers and needs a lot of income sources to stay afloat.

Before Musk bought twitter they had a yearly expenditure of 50M in interest of their financial loans, now with musk this interest alone will be 1B per year, I really don't know how he is going to make it work to generate that amount of income, I expect that there will be more ads than content in twitter and people will run away.

This is why leveraging debt to do buyouts should be illegal.

4

Xaero_Hour t1_iuy6g1m wrote

We already see how he's going to do it for the short term: fire/drive off the majority of the workforce to cut operating costs. Now what's he going to do next fiscal year once he doesn't have enough people to fire to hide the losses, I have no idea.

1

DocMachina t1_iuvje5r wrote

How does charging 8 dollars a month stop bots? That's the whole thing I'm confused about. If a country like China or Russia have been engaging in misinformation through Twitter, that is actively working, how does an 8 dollar subscription fee stop these giant countries with interests in destabilizing their enemies, stop them from doing it? Wouldn't Elon just be getting paid for countries to actively destabilize each other using Twitter for misinformation?

3

BandicootKind705 OP t1_iuvkf35 wrote

Its not about the amount of money alone, but if the payment systems are authentic, i.e. credit cards etc, then it would be mighty hard if not impossible to create thousands and millions of new IDs, just because the credit card system is hard to fake on such a scale.

3

DocMachina t1_iuvkj9c wrote

That doesn't stop countries like China at all

0

BandicootKind705 OP t1_iuvlghv wrote

Uh...I think it does, actually. I know China is very powerful and so is the US and the big superpowers, but it doesn't mean they can do spells. There's still steps. And steps aren't easy like spells.

4

DocMachina t1_iuvm1vo wrote

Twitter isn't government run. Twitter is just as susceptible to infiltration as Facebook or Whatsapp. Often times the US government has problems regulating these companies due to their own lack of knowledge on computer systems and infrastructure as a whole.

The US government would have absolutely no control on whether not conflicting countries can use social media as a tool for misinformation. Paid subscriptions do not stop this problem.

These countries don't even need to pay the subscription fee to continue to spread misinformation. There is an entire crowd of people who refuse to consume any information provided by actual verified outlets. This is nothing short of another billionaire trying to capitalize off of destablization. Blue check marks do nothing to fight these issues lol

2

themistergraves t1_iuvzb98 wrote

Another idea is that these countries could more or less create millions of accounts that don't have blue checks to follow the accounts with blue checks, and then use those accounts with blue checks to write whatever disinformation/propaganda they want, and then have their millions of accounts without blue checks to re-tweet it.

1

CremeImportant2347 t1_iuw1gis wrote

OP is talking about Twitter eventually becoming a paid service for everyone and how that transition would reduce the prevalence of bots.

I don’t understand the relevance of your first two paragraphs discussing government operation/regulation of Twitter. And your last paragraph doesn’t follow at all from the premise that everyone needs to pay for Twitter. If these concepts are connected to OP’s post then please help us see the connection.

1

DocMachina t1_iuz0csa wrote

He said the US government is too powerful, or something along those lines, for bots to be on Twitter in the case of another country using social media for misinformation.

I said it's happening, right now, with countless other social media platforms. No one is going to rush to Twitter to get accurate news, so charging people to have a blue check mark, that anyone can pay for, doesn't just end bots and misinformation.

I don't see how that was lost in translation

1

CremeImportant2347 t1_iv20a1x wrote

I think you misunderstood his point. His point was that payment requires a certain amount of verification through the banking system which would make it harder to use massive bots to spread misinformation. Government doesn’t have the power to sidestep that process. Hence his comment that they “can’t do spells”.

He never said bots aren’t on Twitter or that the US is too powerful to allow bots on Twitter. That’s how it was lost in translation.

1

Henny_B t1_iv0xv0o wrote

Real caveat about this is that U.S security apparatus propaganda is a lot worse.

1

SatansMoisture t1_iuvuoxr wrote

I used twitter back in 2018 and I wasn't impressed with it overall, and left the platform a year later. If it's true that the app is flooded with bots, good luck to anyone to clean that mess up. I personally find it as unnecessary as fat free yogurt.

3

shillyshally t1_iuvhcp5 wrote

$8 a month is chicken feed to blue check people. However, Twitter ad revenue is generated by eyes on Twitter content so blue checks may bristle at being charged for supplying the content that brings attention to the ads. Stephen King has already said as much.

"Last year, Twitter’s interest expense was about $50 million. With the new debt taken on in the deal, that will now balloon to about $1 billion a year. Yet the company’s operations last year generated about $630 million in cash flow to meet its financial obligations."

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/30/technology/elon-musk-twitter-debt.html

The most quoted number of users is around 350M. If each of those users paid $1 a month, that would generate $42B in revenue. But! 10% of the users generate mostly all the content so it would be more likely that 35M users would pay $1 a month and that would only generate $420M. So far, Twitter has lost money except for, I think, two quarters so even with the added user revenue Twitter could not make enough to pay the interest on his loans.

2

CremeImportant2347 t1_iuw4o7h wrote

I like your analysis.

I think you bring up a good point that content creators aren’t going to be cool with the concept of paying for the privilege of making Twitter $.

Long term Twitter is going to need to come up with a model that allows content creators to share in the revenue they generate for the platform similar to YouTube. People don’t work for free and if they do then you get what you pay for…

Your math regarding servicing debt is also valid, but let’s examine your conclusion. $1.05 billion in debt service annually minus $630 million in pre-sale cash flow equals $420 million needed to service the new debt. At $1 per month you estimate additional revenue of $420 million. So the math does pencil out…

1

shillyshally t1_iuwdet8 wrote

I don't math. I used $1 becasue I figured that is what the average person would pay. I'm average and I pay $3 a month to Amazon to keep videos of all the critters visiting my yard at night.

The other thing that could happen is all the ex-Twitter employees found - with some billionaire backing them - a new Twitter. Peeper is probably a no go as far as names go as is Twatter (Except maybe in Australia). Maybe Cheeper since we are all poor these days. Or Quacker for the MAGA anti-vax folks.

As part of a rebranding, Musk could rename Twitter to Blather or Blither or BlitherBlather.

1

Sick_H0b0_Lensz t1_iuvrrh6 wrote

I deleted my account and uninstalled the app as soon as the news broke, it was hard for a few days but now I can actually feel an improvement on my mental health...

Delete and uninstall ppl, it's about sending a message to the richest fuck on the planet

2

themistergraves t1_iuvyrj6 wrote

You could probably improve your mental health even more if you deleted Reddit, too.

2

thesamim t1_iuw6a22 wrote

The basic premise that he is thinking of it as a business is flawed. He continues to demonstrate that every project he has undertaken is an ego project. He just wants to be in the news. If Twitter folds because of his mismanagement he'll find a conspiracy to blame.

2

Torrall t1_iuw7js6 wrote

  • Elon's number 1 concern with Twitter has been to first make it free of spams and bots.
  • ​

No, Elons number 1 concern with twitter is looking like the smartest man in the room. Like all of his concerns. Stop with this hero worship, he's just a man like you. Grow the fuck up.

2

BandicootKind705 OP t1_iuw9osq wrote

Says a child who can't get past childish incentives. Making it free of spams and bots is what will make him look like the smartest in the room, dumdum.

1

Torrall t1_iuw9yki wrote

What childish incentives are you referring to? And no, nothing can fix his reputation with most people at this point.

−1

goofedonskunkweed t1_iuweut2 wrote

The idea is simple: allow users to pay to make their voices and ideas more prominent. Not hard to see the appeal of that concept to people like Musk, David Sacks, the Saudis, etc. etc.

2

Tenshii_9 t1_iv7ic2x wrote

Gatekeeping basicaly. 8 dollars is too much for millions of people who barely survive even with their 2 - 3 jobs

1

[deleted] t1_iuxc3it wrote

I find a lot of my responses on reddit get censored so maybe Twitter is the future with a small fee.

2

AutoModerator t1_iuvbyt8 wrote

This appears to be a post about Elon Musk or one of his companies. Please keep discussion focused on the actual topic / technology and not praising / condemning Elon. Off topic flamewars will be removed and participants may be banned.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

Blunt_White_Wolf t1_iuveuyc wrote

If introducing that is coupled with some sort of option to block comments and DMs from non verified accounts it would be worth it... I guess.

Maybe it helps reduce the number of bot accounts, flame wars and all sorts of threats and crap like that that some people receive.

1

[deleted] t1_iuvs562 wrote

>2.4million dollars every month - pocket change

Yeah, maybe you are delusional but I'm not, 2.4million american dollars is not pocket change for anybody mate.

1

CremeImportant2347 t1_iuw27ib wrote

It is for someone who is worth $200 billion and bought a company, that is losing $800 million per year, for $44 billion. $30 million a year in additional revenue isn’t going to make Twitter a worthwhile purchase.

3

[deleted] t1_iuw6ep2 wrote

Yeah but an extra 30 million a year for what? To fund his goal of going to mars? I don't use Twitter personally, but there is no transparency over why 8 dollars over 4 or 2 or 1, or 15.

1

CremeImportant2347 t1_iuwc4oo wrote

I agree he doesn’t need another $30 million, which was my point that it’s pocket change to him.

The transparency over “why”’is just what are people willing to pay? if people will pay $100/month they’ll charge that, if people won’t pay anything then they can’t charge anything. Some people think Twitter is worth a lot to them and they’ll pay but others, like me, wouldn’t pay a dime for Twitter as it currently exists. They will pick a price point that they believe will maximize their revenue. They just don’t know what that is at the moment so numbers are all over the place.

1

MilkshakeBoy78 t1_iuw3ei7 wrote

anybody? are you sure. 2.4m is pocket change for someone with 240m or 2.4b

2

[deleted] t1_iuw6w46 wrote

Im going to jokingly answer your question but if you want to even be literal, pocket change is cents, most people's assets are over six figures, the difference in those number scales is far greater than millions to billions.

1

BandicootKind705 OP t1_iuwmqkd wrote

Haha, I meant it in a very metaphorical way, and ofcourse I meant it's pocket change for Musk and the company called Twitter, not "anybody".

1

CremeImportant2347 t1_iuwatt0 wrote

Just spitballing here…what if Twitter charged $5/month for a blue check and unlimited tweets and everyone else paid $0.05 per tweet. Accounts can read tweets for free but accounts need a verified payment method to tweet.

Using shillyshally’s assumptions above if 10% of users pay $5/month that’s $175 million/month or $2.1 billion annually. According to Google there are about 500 million tweets per day at $0.05 per tweet that’s over $9 billion per year. (Of course that would be lower because of the unlimited accounts and people tweeting less often).

I can see the combination of verified payment method and $/per tweet significantly reducing bots/trolls/and misinformation. A cleaner platform may encourage more actual people to use it in the long run.

I could also see a revenue sharing model where people who pay $5/month share in the revenue generated by their tweets. Like they receive $0.01 per comment/retweet plus a share of the ad revenue derived from their account. Under those circumstances an unlimited user would have a “free” Account if they generate 500 comments/retweets per month. Those “free” accounts would generate $25/month in tweet revenue for Twitter, $20/month profit. Assuming 10% of accounts reach that threshold that’s about $8.5 billion in additional net revenue for Twitter.

Obviously market research would need to back these assumptions but I could see something like this turning Twitter into a very profitable business with higher quality content.

1

mojomonkeyfish t1_iuwpnjk wrote

If Facebook has been unable to leverage paid accounts, what would possibly make Twitter think they could do so.

1

rude_duner t1_iuwtg0w wrote

Or maybe—hear me out—Elon isn’t a genius who is always playing 4d chess. Maybe he’s a dog who caught the car and doesn’t know what to do with it. Charging for the check mark defeats the entire purpose of the check mark. It’s not calculated, it’s stupid.

I will leave Twitter and not lose a wink of sleep over it if they ever charge me a single cent and I am confident that the vast, vast majority of users will do the same. If he doesn’t realize that then he’s even dumber than he’s seemingly been trying to make himself appear with his push polls, leading questions, and bad memes that he’s been rambling off in an attempt to win people back over ever since he got publicly embarrassed by being forced to buy this company at a loss.

My advice? Mute his account. Block every ad account. And the second someone demands you pay money for a social media account, delete the app. We control the economy, not people like Elon. We vote with our attention and our dollar. Stop voting for that guy, please for the love of god.

1

f0me t1_iuwyscv wrote

I will absolutely pay a subscription for ad-free social media.

1

naossoan t1_iux7xly wrote

Why would anyone pay $1 per month to participate in THE WORST that humanity and the internet has to offer?

1

winfr33k t1_iuxesv2 wrote

the only way paying money would be worth it is if it means that Twitter can not be bullied into forced narratives and censorship from the Advertisement Agencies. I have a little less faith in humanity and think that he would still end up complying with the group think laws of certain EU countries that do not find free speech an important concept for their Democracy variant. Making it to where you can filter content for those regions should be a healthy compromise. Let folks create their personal safe spaces in the Twitter world is fair as well. I am not on board for forced identity checks on social platforms as that sounds like a great way for governments to have full access to people's phones especially if most brands/isps force apps like Facebook and Twitter without allowing you to remove them. So allow folks to select progressive, conservative, i dont care, none of the above, communist, socialist, green party etc. then allow folks to filter all content to only the choice selected while blocking the others. Then also have a free for all area where everyone can participate and battle it out. Label folks combative if they try and troll the political "safe spaces" lol We do not need corporations or governments to add parental controls on thoughts people have, narratives etc.

1

CremeImportant2347 t1_iuydcpm wrote

I thought that was Musk’s motivation for making the purchase - to free Twitter from the shackles of the PC police. Of course in jurisdictions that have banned free speech Twitter has to follow the law.

With respect to the filter idea, I think it’s dangerous to just set Twitter on “echo chamber” mode. In my opinion too many people only consume news/media that confirms their beliefs and that’s causing the violent political divisions in the US. This is an oversimplification but before social media and algorithm-selected news people could have civil discussions over political disagreements. Now I don’t even understand the other side because I can’t have a productive conversation on substantive political issues.

1

winfr33k t1_iv0zgc2 wrote

if we have real life safe spaces, there is nothing wrong with online safe spaces. Many people enjoy intruding/trolling on those spaces or banning folks from having one's they do not agree with but I understand your point of view. You would likely enjoy the free for all section. Key thing is we do not need governments, corporations or big tech to police platforms that we can police ourselves. Hire an exec to handle progressive twitter safe space to which they ensure it is not intruded by conservative types and whoever is the not z of the day. Have an exec in charge of the free for all section to which their team can only remove stuff that is illegal. Would likely need to create a safe space for the EU because they dont have free speech so an EU exec so that America or a place like Brazil would not need to be censored to the same level without Twitter worrying about being sued. To keep things balanced Elon comes in when enough users complain about the exec to do internal investigation. Curious folks from the EU may learn how to get an American or region that is not censored as much for their own good IP but it would not fall under GDPR or EU at that point. The risks for them are likely as harsh as a Chinese person trying to look outside the scope of Chinese propaganda

1

Resident_Afternoon48 t1_iuy9nt0 wrote

If u want to analyze data so you can use it to understand humans better you need to get rid of bots.

1

Kokonut_Ken t1_iv1j6j4 wrote

Finally, someone said it! Thank you. I totally agree with you. Bots and spam accounts really curve the learning algorithm of a real human beings.

2

No-Owl9201 t1_iuzyu1o wrote

"Free to say whatever you like at ten words to the dollar.."

1

gaberax t1_iux9x31 wrote

I'm ready to cancel my account, fee or no fee. Fuck Musk.

0

pat-work t1_iuxabfk wrote

I disagree. I strongly believe Elon Musk's entire stunt was merely to gain publicity - think about it, every corner of the internet is discussing this topic as of late. As they say, any publicity is good publicity.

0

Cuissonbake t1_iuyep90 wrote

If they charge me to use twitter then I'm deleting it.

0