10 ms·

Super Follows

• perihelions 5y ago
  Which subcultures of Twitter would want to pay IRL money for tweets? I'm seriously out of the loop here.
  • vichu 5y ago
    The only immediate use case that comes to mind is as a competitor to OnlyFans. Sex workers by and large are already all over Twitter.
  • slimginz 5y ago
    People who would subscribe to OnlyFans creators. Yeah it's a small set of people but those people are willing to throw down _massive_ amounts of money for that kind of stuff.
  • zem 5y ago
    i wouldn't pay for tweets, but i might be happy to support people whose regular tweets entertain or inform me (right now i do it via patreon for a couple of them)
  • praisewhitey 5y ago
    I know of plenty of writers/podcasters/video creators that make a steady income via substack/patreon, but that's all long form content that can't be hosted on twitter. I can't imagine there are many people with twitter feeds valuable enough to pay for.
  • ammpleeeww 5y ago
    Anyone using patreon. Unless you’re one of the few creators that have set up a DRM scheme using Patreon’s API, Patreon is functionally just a pay-to-view newsletter operating on the honor system and the idea that you’re paying as a show of support, not for a specific product/item. Creators share text updates, images, video, download links, etc based on paying tiers. A Twitter feed works just as well for that. Many (most?) artists use Twitter as a sharing/visibility platform already, equivalent to a “free tier” on Patreon but with much better visibility thanks to retweet-sharing and Twitter’s size. Having a smooth on-ramp for casual viewers to transition to patreon-style support could be quite useful.
• rgbrgb 5y ago
  I wonder if this will allow explicit content and try to come for OnlyFans. Seems unlikely, but that's the first analogue I thought of.
  • warning26 5y ago
    IIRC Twitter currently allows explicit content, so my guess is this is exactly Twitter's plan for this service.
• falcolas 5y ago
  It appears that, given the 0 refund policy, blocking super followers will cost the followers money. Oddly, this feels good for folks who would otherwise be harassed by such an amplification mechanism.
• adoxyz 5y ago
  I just don't get who would pay for this. Maybe I'm getting old. Also this is a good example of how Apple's fees are sneaking into creator content. Out of a $5/mo sub, Apple gets $1.50 as an Apple Tax, yet Twitter still charges money on top of that for processing. The Internet has taken a turn for the worse.
  • hotgeart 5y ago
    Yes you're.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • the_bear 5y ago
    Right now, a lot of "creators" use Twitter to generate leads to sell premium content of various sorts (e.g. paid newsletters, ebooks, etc.). But the premium content has to live somewhere else, and there's a challenge getting people from Twitter to those other platforms. I can see both the creators and consumers of content being happier if the lead gen and delivery of the premium content could happen in the same place. This especially makes sense if Twitter integrates this further with their Revue acquisition. A few examples I could imagine: - This could be used as an alternative to Substack/paid newsletters. - I could see this being popular with people who share tips like crypto/stocks, etc. Get the basic tips for free, pay to get the good stuff (note: I don't endorse this, I'm just saying I bet it'll happen). - This is a bit different from everything else I'm mentioning, but I bet celebrities could get their hardcore fans to pay for inside access to various things (e.g. backstage videos).
  • hamburgerwah 5y ago
    It's basic patronage of the arts. It's a mechanism that long predates anything to do with the internet. Like a creator? Want them to keep creating? Give them money directly (well mostly directly).
    • cma 5y ago
      But why so much to Apple?
• warning26 5y ago
  So it's basically Patreon/OnlyFans but for Twitter. I can't imagine anyone will want this for non-porn purposes, but I guess maybe they're hoping they can scrape off a bit of OnlyFans' market share.
  • taylorlapeyre 5y ago
    There's also a really active community of really smart people posting takes and interesting viewpoints on Twitter. Most of them seem to have Substacks these days, so this makes sense from my perspective. If Substack is monetized long-form think pieces, then "super follows" could be monetized "smart people thoughts."
    • brod 5y ago
      I was genuinely surprised your comment doesn't end with an "/s", but anyway, I'd be interested to hear the rationale of users who pay for "smart people thoughts".
      • Swizec 5y ago
        > the rationale of users who pay for "smart people thoughts" I pay for the Economist all the time. So far it's been great. The news is completely useless on a personal value basis, but reading the insightful calm reporting without drama has been fantastic. Especially during the US election when it felt like the whole world was screaming at me 24/7. I'm also a big buyer of audiobooks from experts so that I can get their "smart people thoughts" on $topic.
      • taylorlapeyre 5y ago
        Your comment implies that paying money to hear the thoughts & opinions of smart people is some sort of new concept that should be considered with skepticism. And yes, Twitter does contain more than just political shouting matches by random people. Here's a few examples: 1. I follow a few photographers that I greatly admire. Some of their best work is on Twitter. With super-follows, I can support these artists and get exclusive posts for things like gear reviews, etc. 2. I follow a lot of economists/scientists that often have really interesting insights. Noah Smith, Tyler Cowen, Ezra Klein, Scott Manley, to name a few. I'd happily pay a couple dollars a month for more in-depth content by them on Twitter. 3. I also follow some interesting writers and creators, like Craig Mod, Hundred Rabbits, and Kyle Chakya. I could see myself paying them a couple bucks a month if enough of their content was offered that way. They are also people I really respect, so I'd be happy to support them.
• WaitWaitWha 5y ago
  Didn't Twitter started experimenting with forcing login to see some Twitter accounts? Combined with this, it now makes more sense.
• moralestapia 5y ago
  Twitter is having an identity crisis, sad. This is born dead, very few people (even at the scale of twitter) pay for stuff which is already free.
  • Kiro 5y ago
    Not true. You don't need a Twitch subscription to watch a streamer but hundreds of thousands of people still subscribe for $5 a month.
• ufmace 5y ago
  Much as I dislike Twitter as a concept and a company, I think this is a good idea. It's high time the tech majors started to move towards alternative revenue streams from advertisement, and encouraging users to pay producers directly for content with the platform taking a cut seems like a good way to do that. I don't know offhand who will charge for their tweets or what kind of content they'll be charging for, but I'm confident that the market is far more creative than any of us are at finding ways to use features like this.
  • DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
    > I don't know offhand who will charge for their tweets or what kind of content they'll be charging for, but I'm confident that the market is far more creative than any of us are at finding ways to use features like this. Apparently tarot-card readers
  • xyzzy123 5y ago
    Feels like the end state in less competitive markets is that the customer pays AND they get ads. Very hard not to do ads at media companies. At the very least, content manipulation via "promotion". The problem is that paying customers are the _best_ segment! They're like a delicious cookie of revenue just sitting there. Uneaten. At some point natural growth slows. The forces of capitalism demand at least revenue growth. Where to squeeze it from? The cookie is right there. Paying customers get ads, surveillance and manipulated feeds.
    • xiphias2 5y ago
      The problem is not ads but the amount, quality and how they are shown. Lex Fridman gives us the links and the timeline so that we can just skip it, but still see them if we want, and gives hours of content in return.
      • eropple 5y ago
        The problem is absolutely the ads. I subscribe to people on Twitch. Twitch is getting money from me. I'm also a Twitch Prime member and Amazon makes a lot of money off of me generally. They can do without sticking ads in my face. I'll put up with ads when I'm not paying for things (and Twitch takes a very large cut!). If I am, get out. This is why I pay for YouTube Premium, because then I don't get ads.
• jimbob45 5y ago
  OnlyFans is a UK-based company and Twitter is US-based. I sometimes wonder how much of stuff like this is just governments trying to capture value with their own companies rather than letting it go to foreign companies. I know we saw virtually this same thing with TikTok/Instagram Reels. Seems a bit conspiratorial but I don't otherwise know why Twitter would implement this.
  • mromanuk 5y ago
    I feel weird saying this, but probably they do this in response to common market forces and trends
• kodah 5y ago
  I wonder if people like Malang Khostay will be eligible for this, given that it's a direct line to funding terrorism.
• crazygringo 5y ago
  This is very intriguing. I'm most interested to see over time if super following is used mainly for: 1. Real-time financially valuable tweets from experts (market analysts, crypto experts, breaking news that can move stock markets, etc.), where the tweets are perceived as genuinely worth paying for 2. Supporting creative types -- musicians, comedians, etc. -- not necessarily for the tweets themselves, but just to support them because you like them, and maybe you'll get early access to show tickets too or something 3. Paying for content that's genuinely interesting in itself, e.g. short newsletters in tweet form. I'm not sure the price is high enough for #1 to be a viable business model. I'm not sure enough people will voluntarily pay #2 to make a dent (or they already use Patreon instead). And #3 seems particularly ill-suited to Twitter's short-form. But we'll see -- it would be nice if this did wind up supporting people financially.
  • mikepurvis 5y ago
    Seems like they're trying to get back a piece of the Patreon pie, similar to Twitch with all its (now) built-in sponsorship options.
  • moonchild 5y ago
    > the tweets are perceived as genuinely worth paying for If the information is really so valuable, then either: 1) the expected value of paying for it is positive, the purveyor would be better playing the market themself (or working for a hedge fund...) than selling it 2) the expected value of paying for it is negative, the people buying for it are wasting their money
    • VenTatsu 5y ago
      Not all market transactions are done to make money on the trade itself, many are done to protect a larger business interest. This is very uncommon on stock markets, but is very common on commodity markets. You don't generally hear much discussion of commodity markets because they are not the big way (at least not today) for people doing trading to make it rich quick. Most consumer level goods have become insulated from price fluctuations in commodity markets, but there is still some variation at the consumer level in the price of fresh fish and meats, and sometimes fresh fruits and vegetables. At the scale restaurants buy, and especially large chains or higher scale restaurants, price fluctuations can make a big impact on profitability. Getting tipped off early to a situation that might impact prices can allow a company to lock in a futures contract at the current prices for delivery later on when prices have risen before the people selling know that prices are about to go up. The result is that the people gathering the data and producing information may not be in a position to get value directly, they are not already trading in those commodity, but people already doing that trading may get value from better or faster information on the market.
• rexf 5y ago
  > $1.50 - Apple’s in-app purchase fee (currently, 30% of subscription cost under Apple’s terms, subject to change by Apple) Their revenue breakdown wording is interesting. It implies Apple could change their 30% cut, which is always possible, but doesn't seem likely?
  • smoldesu 5y ago
    I think that's there to insinuate that this dividend is not under their control. If Apple were to introduce an overhaul to their finance structure as was anticipated last week, they'd likely adjust the margins to suit.
• deviation 5y ago
  I feel like this will be very popular in the politics/cult-following circles for raising money and pushing agendas... But I do hope it stays pure and becomes a way to genuinely support a creator who provides valuable opinions or views. Perhaps a scenario like being able to super-follow the person behind a Wall Street Journal article, instead of the journal fees instead.
• bob229 5y ago
  Delete your account
• mdoms 5y ago
  I feel like this would have been a good idea 5 years ago, but Twitter has become increasingly irrelevant in the interim. Using it now, it feels like Twitter is largely another soapbox for journalists and politicians, while most normal users have gradually peeled away. I take no pleasure in saying this - I have had an active Twitter account for 12 years, although I rarely tweet nowadays.
• teraflop 5y ago
  The FAQ sounds reasonable, but there's a lot of shady-looking stuff in the actual terms. For instance: > We may share revenue generated from the sale of Subscriptions to your Super Follows account with you at a rate which will depend, in Twitter’s discretion, on several factors, including the total number and price of Subscriptions purchased for your Super Follows account and the fees and taxes [...] that Apple, Google, Payment Processor, banks and/or credit card companies may assess in the purchase of Subscriptions and in processing payments to you. You understand this and should have no expectation that any particular revenue percentage will apply, or continue to apply, over time. > We do not promise that the purchase of Subscriptions can be used to redeem any guaranteed sum of money, or any money at all. [...] You agree that we will not be liable to you, and you will not assert that we are liable to you, based on the sale of Subscriptions to your Super Follows account, including for any share of revenue generated from the sale of Subscriptions. > We also do not guarantee that everyone with access to your Super Follows account will have purchased a Subscription. > In addition, we reserve the rights, in our sole discretion, to [...] withhold, suspend, recoup or set-off Subscriptions revenue (including any earned balance that may have been generated from past or future Subscription sales to a Creator’s Super Follows account) Also, this is pretty minor in the grand scheme of things, but I find it hilariously petty that legal notices to Twitter must be sent by both regular email and postal mail, and are only valid on receipt... but notices from Twitter only have to be emailed, and are presumed valid when sent. Just a straight-up "I'm big, you're little, and there's nothing you can do about it." Compare to Patreon's TOS (https://www.patreon.com/policy/legal https://www.patreon.com/policy/legal) which explicitly lays out the fees they charge. Twitter's version is more like "fuck you, we'll pay you if we feel like it."
  • LegitShady 5y ago
    I don't understand why they can't have reasonable terms from the get go. sketchy stuff you quoted.
  • WA 5y ago
    Stuff like this is why most people don’t want to pay and the whole thing will be labeled as "meh people vote with their wallets and they prefer ads over payments". In reality, it’s not in the company’s DNA and slapping payments with those ridiculous terms on a free product is simply not trustworthy. Patreon is the opposite: clear terms, payments is their DNA, hence people are willing to pay and support creators.
• jzb 5y ago
  Apparently Twitter will experiment with any revenue model except 1) actually just letting people pay to get rid of ads + see content in chronological order without other bullshit, or 2) allowing users to edit tweets which people have been begging for for years.
  • marcinzm 5y ago
    >1) actually just letting people pay to get rid of ads + see content in chronological order without other bullshit It can't because the people most likely to pay are also the ones worth the most to advertisers. Thus you need to charge more to make up for it, thus selecting for even more valuable people, etc, etc. >2) allowing users to edit tweets which people have been begging for for years. Due to the high possibility for abuse either by users or people taking over their accounts this is unlikely unless it resets all metrics on the tweet. At which point you may as well make a new tweet. Same reason you can't edit the title of a reddit post.
    • iainmerrick 5y ago
      Oh, come on, there are plenty of reasonable solutions to both of those, such as: 1) If you need to set the price high to avoid that effect, just set it high. 2) Add an “edited” tag (just like HN does). For replies that and retweets that came in before the edit, maybe have an easy way to show the original version. Or, 2b) Show the edited version literally as an edit, with the typos crossed out.
      • marcinzm 5y ago
        >1) If you need to set the price high to avoid that effect, just set it high. You missed my point, there is possibly no price high enough. The higher the price the more valuable the users who pay it are to advertisers. Thus the price needs to be even higher and endlessly up it goes. >2) Add an “edited” tag (just like HN does) HN does not allow the changing of headlines either except by admins. Arguably headlines are closer to tweets than comments.
        • deleted 5y ago
• rojoca 5y ago
  Great, now the timeline is going to be full of "just tweeted X to my super follows, super follow me here: ...". Sounds like more ads. I guess in fairness you probably don't want to follow people who tweet like this but these kinds of tweets will still be hard to avoid. I'd rather just pay twitter $x/yr for no ads.
  • meibo 5y ago
    Yeah, a few artists I follow were in the first batch and I'm already getting tired of them shilling for Patreon, Twitch subs, Ko-Fi and now Twitter subscriptions, all at once, all over my timeline. I realize these people need an income but I can't be the only one that feels a bit put off.
    • rchaud 5y ago
      It's a tough balance, as you said, artists and creators should have a way to monetize. But they're hardly the only ones doing it, so depending on who you follow, Twitter can end up feeling like a subway station with buskers as far as the eye can see.
  • Jcowell 5y ago
    You don’t even have to do all that. Twitter has a mute words feature that allows you to target key words so that you’ll never see tweets that have them. It amazes me how much HN complains about Twitter without understanding the tools Twitter provides. It’s similar in essence to uniformed Anti Vaxxers who’s only contempt with Vaccines are based on lack of understanding.
    • rchaud 5y ago
      It does not always work. Early this year I added "NFT" to my list, tons of posts got through.
• kreutz 5y ago
  > Super Follows is a way for people’s most engaged followers to help them earn money for their contributions on Twitter. When someone offers a Super Follows subscription, their Super Followers can see bonus Tweets created especially for them. Super Followers receive badges on all their replies to the person they’ve Super Followed, letting them stand out in the conversation. I could hardly follow that paragraph.
• kiliancs 5y ago
  > Note: We’re still in the early stages of Super Follows,and right now only people in our initial test group can offer Super Follows subscrpitions. I wonder if the note was added last minute :)
• thorgutierrez 5y ago
  I think some people might use super follows to increase the quality of the conversation in their comments (no more bots/trolls), similar to what Vitalik did today [1] but for a wider audience. I liked that thread so much that I think there is something here. Looking forward to it. With obvious caveat it might keep some folks without the means out of the conversation ... [1] https://twitter.com/VitalikButerin/status/1433195737907564545 https://twitter.com/VitalikButerin/status/143319573790756454...
• bitwize 5y ago
  Codenamed: "Oh Shit, I Forgot This Was A Business, Quick, Somebody Think Of A Way To Monetize!"