5 ms·
Well, having people answer phones costs money, and you are not paying for Twitter. Your "data" and "eyeballs" aren't actually worth much. Would you be ok with a
by TorKlingberg 10y ago
Well, having people answer phones costs money, and you are not paying for Twitter. Your "data" and "eyeballs" aren't actually worth much. Would you be ok with a premium rate number where you pay per minute?
- ivraatiems 10y agoActually, that's... not a terrible idea. It's not the best idea, but pulled off right, a simple "we'll help you but if it's not a security issue, site downage or a serious harassment incident you gotta pay" is way better than current help models for social media/large sites.
- dabockster 10y agoI agree with the overall idea, but let's keep it affordable. Something like $10-15 per call.
- Domenic_S 10y agoWhy not a 900 number (remember those?), pay per minute.
- marcoperaza 10y agoThen people would accuse them, fairly or not, of being slow on purpose to collect more money.
- Jordrok 10y agoIt's not the user's fault if the business model isn't sustainable.
- Daviey 10y agoSorry, but no. This isn't acceptable. The value in their product is the people. Cutting them off, without discussion means they are selecting their product choice. If a human did this, based on a complaint (perhaps), they can talk to both sides - not just the complainant.