3 ms·

new economic model: users pay on the basis of how many followers they have. the first 1000 followers are free. pricing begins for accounts with over 1000 follow

new economic model: users pay on the basis of how many followers they have. the first 1000 followers are free. pricing begins for accounts with over 1000 followers. the more followers you have the more you pay. this places the payment model in alignment with who the actual beneficiaries of twitter are. it's a mass broadcast advertising/propaganda platform. let the propagandists pay for it.

rtkwe 10y ago
That's massively open for abuse: Find someone you don't like or want to harass and get lots of people to hate follow them. Costs them money or forces them to use some Twitter moderation tool to cull followers. Second thought with any social media feature should be how can an asshole use this to be an asshole easier.
- metaphorm 10y ago
  I don't understand your criticism. How do you propose a bad-actor could control such a large number of accounts? even supposing this malicious figure had that much influence, the problem is just one of how Twitter bills its users. It is the platform's responsibility to determine how it bills and whether or not it is billing fairly. this is a technical implementation detail of the platform, which is beyond the scope of this discussion. finally, suppose those are "malicious followers". who cares? you pay for reach. if all those supposedly malicious followers stay as your followers they're still seeing your tweets. isn't that the point? I don't see how this is an abuse of the system. A view is a view. Are we suppose to now distinguish between friendly vs. hostile views? This is getting ridiculous.
  - rtkwe 10y ago
    A couple different ways but bots or just a large group of people getting angry at someone are the simplest, the second is already pretty common and a problem with Twitter as it stands. Next the billing is an integral part of the discussion. If it's impossible to accurately bill something it's a terrible feature. Finally there are massive number of people who use twitter completely noncommercially but might wind up with this problem. Charging anyone who isn't trying to sell something for reach is a pretty much guaranteed way to shed tons of users.

rtkwe 10y ago

That's massively open for abuse: Find someone you don't like or want to harass and get lots of people to hate follow them. Costs them money or forces them to use some Twitter moderation tool to cull followers. Second thought with any social media feature should be how can an asshole use this to be an asshole easier.

metaphorm 10y ago
I don't understand your criticism. How do you propose a bad-actor could control such a large number of accounts? even supposing this malicious figure had that much influence, the problem is just one of how Twitter bills its users. It is the platform's responsibility to determine how it bills and whether or not it is billing fairly. this is a technical implementation detail of the platform, which is beyond the scope of this discussion. finally, suppose those are "malicious followers". who cares? you pay for reach. if all those supposedly malicious followers stay as your followers they're still seeing your tweets. isn't that the point? I don't see how this is an abuse of the system. A view is a view. Are we suppose to now distinguish between friendly vs. hostile views? This is getting ridiculous.
- rtkwe 10y ago
  A couple different ways but bots or just a large group of people getting angry at someone are the simplest, the second is already pretty common and a problem with Twitter as it stands. Next the billing is an integral part of the discussion. If it's impossible to accurately bill something it's a terrible feature. Finally there are massive number of people who use twitter completely noncommercially but might wind up with this problem. Charging anyone who isn't trying to sell something for reach is a pretty much guaranteed way to shed tons of users.