7 ms·

I suspect if Elon can get away with charging many, and probably most, heavy users of the platform a monthly fee, Zuckerberg will as well. In many ways such an

I suspect if Elon can get away with charging many, and probably most, heavy users of the platform a monthly fee, Zuckerberg will as well. In many ways such an outcome makes sense given Apple's ATT changes decimated targeted advertising revenue.

tmalsburg2 4y ago
Charging the people who create content for you is not going to fly.
- michaelt 4y ago
  Some twitter users are clearly willing to pay for whatever it is they get out of using twitter - one just paid $44 billion :)
- aliqot 4y ago
  For you maybe, but people are vain enough to pay 20 bucks and more for a little blue check. There were insider rings charging much more for it. Time will tell though, if the easiness with which a blue checkmark is acquired will diminish the significance of having one, and to what degree.
  - hobs 4y ago
    It doesn't matter, charging all engaged users won't make enough money to be meaningful, the math just doesn't work out.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - aqme28 4y ago
      This. It's akin to charging YouTube creators $20/month. These are not the users that are making them money.
  - lupire 4y ago
    How many people will pay 2x the price of Disney+/Spotify/Netflix for a blue check on Twitter?
    - willcipriano 4y ago
      90% of the people who currently have them is my guess. Though the winds of social favor may shift as Twitter becomes open to more diversity of thought.
      - jasonlotito 4y ago
        Blue checkmarks will be people paying to market to you. It won't take long to block people with blue checkmarks. Before it was some verification that this was a real person/official entity. As for twitter becoming open to more "diversity of thought" I mean, I guess if you want more ads, sure?
      - matthewdgreen 4y ago
        There's a great Dr. Seuss book called "The Sneetches" I think would help you to understand what's about to happen.
      - luddit3 4y ago
        Twitter devolving into 4chan or as you say "diversity of thought" will not lend itself to having journalists wanting to keep their status on the site.
      - hutzlibu 4y ago
        "as Twitter becomes open to more diversity of thought." That remains to be seen. It might as well just lead to a shift of thought. Or that all opinions are welcome, but only those get traction and an audience, that happen to align to the opinions of Musk (and whoever else, who has invested heavily behind the scenes)
      - AlexandrB 4y ago
        I use Twitter more than I should - though in a read-only context - and I don't understand what "diversity of thought" is missing at the moment. You can go on any leftist's Twitter and see replies calling them communist, calling trans people mentally ill, etc. The only stuff getting banned consistently is either incitement, like calling for "death con 3" on a group of people or outright racial/gendered slurs. There are mass-reporting campaigns (targeting individuals from both "sides"), but these are usually overturned and are not entirely Twitter's fault. Sure, better moderation would improve the outcome in mass-reporting cases, but it's less a case of bad policy and more a case of Twitter needing to invest more in moderation. Something I think is less likely now that Twitter is loaded up with debt.
  - _jal 4y ago
    We'll have to see. When it was "exclusive" and indicated some degree of notability, yeah, people who couldn't get it wanted it. Now it signifies you're willing to pay $250/year for a virtual hood ornament. A nice signal for scammers, but otherwise like listing yourself in "Who's Who".
    - usrusr 4y ago
      There are different ways it could work out. On Strava, more than half of the people I interact with are subscribers and that used to be more a signal of "willing to chime in for the platform to remain mostly ad-free" than a fee for extended freemium features (this has changed a bit, more paywalled features, and I'm not too happy about that despite being a subscriber). I believe that it would be possible (even if not likely) for Twitter to shift into a lean state where they focus on just keeping the boat running and fostering loyalty with those who can and want to afford a subscription that's more a supporter badge than a gateway to extended features. Certainly depends on how much of their current cost is essentially ad sales and how much of that they can (and want to) cut. At least they are certainly much closer to that than anything Meta ever created or bought (with the exception of Oculus, which might certainly have been on a path to becoming a viable hardware company had it not received the Zuck's kiss of becoming deeply untrustable)
- matthewdgreen 4y ago
  But it will definitely temper my social media addiction, which will make me a lot more productive. So I'm rooting for it.
- indymike 4y ago
  I think a lot of them would pay a small amount to keep the cash flowing. They many not like it, but the leverage is on the platform's side until the audience moves.
- throwayyy479087 4y ago
  People have an extremely dependent relationship with Twitter. It’s more like gambling than media. They will absolutely pay.
  - kspacewalk2 4y ago
    If we don't fund-raise and pay for $position_X_on_political_spectrum voices on Twitter to spread virtue and truth, the conversation will be hijacked by those goddamn $position_Y_on_political_spectrum shills and traitors!
- baxtr 4y ago
  It’s clearly a trade-off decision. If paying will give you access to a target audience people will pay. But I agree that you need some kind of business to be willing to pay.
- kspacewalk2 4y ago
  Yes it will, if those people are creating the content for some other goal - e.g. political, commercial, publicity, etc.
- guywithahat 4y ago
  I mean the entirety of Gab and the fediverse are based off of content producers paying to use the service
  - cloutchaser 4y ago
    People pay gab? What?
    - guywithahat 4y ago
      Yeah Gab Pro, it lets you upload higher quality content, videos, and some other stuff including applying to get verified. It's how they made most of their money for a long time, ads are a recent thing for their site to my understanding. It's $15/month
aqme28 4y ago
You're more optimistic than I am that charging for verification would be an effective way to make money for Twitter. More likely I think it'll just lead to far fewer blue checks and no significant change of revenue.
- osrec 4y ago
  And it may also make the blue ticks meaningless, if just anyone can pay and get them.
  - cma 4y ago
    That's how universities with donor and alumni preference work. They let in notable people more easily and people that test well may even get a scholarship, and others can bribe to be included in the club.
    - giaour 4y ago
      Bribing your way into an elite college costs a lot more than $20/month, though. As a society, we also confer prestige on a lot of things that basically amount to spending a prohibitively large sum of money: running a foundation; being an angel investor; owning a sports team, champion racehorse, Lamborghini, etc. But if just anybody can afford something and the only barrier to entry is cost, then it has no social currency.
      - usrusr 4y ago
        There are plenty of goods that work essentially like veblen goods but that are not really out of reach for anybody who is a non-zero amount of disposable beyond starvation. Converse shoes, Ray Ban shades, there's an endless list of brands that people pay a premium for to show off, despite not containing even the tiniest trace of that exclusivity that stems from being prohibitively expensive.
        giaour 4y ago
vxNsr 4y ago
People fundamentally use Facebook differently than twitter, even if fb can be used as a public square, most ppl still use it to network with ppl they know (or used to know). Whereas twitter’s entire use case is talking to people who you’ve never met and likely never will. The point is that engagement is very different and no one cares about verification on fb. Editable posts have been a thing for years and I’m blanking on what other features are part of twitter blue but I doubt it’ll be enough to charge people $19.99/m
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
lupire 4y ago
Heavy users as in frequent posters: is just selling native advertising. It doesn't change the ad-suported model.
- krisroadruck 4y ago
  ^ Been on twitter since the early days. I'm not much of a social creature by nature, but as a marketing channel, twitter has by far generated the most business for me over the years. I just be helpful in public, and when we need a new customer I literally just tweet "had some hours open up if anyone is looking for X" and just like magic we get a new customer. I wouldn't scoff at paying a little to keep that, but remove the non-native/boosted advertising from my feed.
zzuko 4y ago
Facebook or Instagram doesnt have monitization problem. Wouldn't this be short sighted / greedy?
cronix 4y ago
I actually think we should pay for the things we use. Then we can retire the "if you're not paying for the product, you are the product" excuse that many just automatically throw out to justify data collection.
- egeozcan 4y ago
  Most keep collecting data (making you the product) even when you pay for the product. MS Windows, Smart TVs, your graphics card driver, your popular news source even with the ad-free plan... It looks like you cannot pay them enough to get rid of the tracking.
- pmoriarty 4y ago
  You're going to be the product regardless. They'll just charge you on top of collecting and profiting from the data they collect on you.
shagie 4y ago
> I suspect if Elon can get away with charging many, and probably most, heavy users of the platform a monthly fee That's going really well so far... https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1587312517679878144 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1587312517679878144
pliftkl 4y ago
I would absolutely be willing to pay a monthly fee for a Facebook that wouldn't serve me ads or "suggested" things in my feed, and only showed me things that I explicitly said I was interested in. I'm curious how much I'm actually worth to FB under the advertising model, since that's going to dictate how much fee they would need to ditch advertising.

tmalsburg2 4y ago

Charging the people who create content for you is not going to fly.

michaelt 4y ago
Some twitter users are clearly willing to pay for whatever it is they get out of using twitter - one just paid $44 billion :)
aliqot 4y ago
For you maybe, but people are vain enough to pay 20 bucks and more for a little blue check. There were insider rings charging much more for it. Time will tell though, if the easiness with which a blue checkmark is acquired will diminish the significance of having one, and to what degree.
- hobs 4y ago
  It doesn't matter, charging all engaged users won't make enough money to be meaningful, the math just doesn't work out.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - aqme28 4y ago
    This. It's akin to charging YouTube creators $20/month. These are not the users that are making them money.
- lupire 4y ago
  How many people will pay 2x the price of Disney+/Spotify/Netflix for a blue check on Twitter?
  - willcipriano 4y ago
    90% of the people who currently have them is my guess. Though the winds of social favor may shift as Twitter becomes open to more diversity of thought.
    - jasonlotito 4y ago
      Blue checkmarks will be people paying to market to you. It won't take long to block people with blue checkmarks. Before it was some verification that this was a real person/official entity. As for twitter becoming open to more "diversity of thought" I mean, I guess if you want more ads, sure?
    - matthewdgreen 4y ago
      There's a great Dr. Seuss book called "The Sneetches" I think would help you to understand what's about to happen.
    - luddit3 4y ago
      Twitter devolving into 4chan or as you say "diversity of thought" will not lend itself to having journalists wanting to keep their status on the site.
    - hutzlibu 4y ago
      "as Twitter becomes open to more diversity of thought." That remains to be seen. It might as well just lead to a shift of thought. Or that all opinions are welcome, but only those get traction and an audience, that happen to align to the opinions of Musk (and whoever else, who has invested heavily behind the scenes)
    - AlexandrB 4y ago
      I use Twitter more than I should - though in a read-only context - and I don't understand what "diversity of thought" is missing at the moment. You can go on any leftist's Twitter and see replies calling them communist, calling trans people mentally ill, etc. The only stuff getting banned consistently is either incitement, like calling for "death con 3" on a group of people or outright racial/gendered slurs. There are mass-reporting campaigns (targeting individuals from both "sides"), but these are usually overturned and are not entirely Twitter's fault. Sure, better moderation would improve the outcome in mass-reporting cases, but it's less a case of bad policy and more a case of Twitter needing to invest more in moderation. Something I think is less likely now that Twitter is loaded up with debt.
- _jal 4y ago
  We'll have to see. When it was "exclusive" and indicated some degree of notability, yeah, people who couldn't get it wanted it. Now it signifies you're willing to pay $250/year for a virtual hood ornament. A nice signal for scammers, but otherwise like listing yourself in "Who's Who".
  - usrusr 4y ago
    There are different ways it could work out. On Strava, more than half of the people I interact with are subscribers and that used to be more a signal of "willing to chime in for the platform to remain mostly ad-free" than a fee for extended freemium features (this has changed a bit, more paywalled features, and I'm not too happy about that despite being a subscriber). I believe that it would be possible (even if not likely) for Twitter to shift into a lean state where they focus on just keeping the boat running and fostering loyalty with those who can and want to afford a subscription that's more a supporter badge than a gateway to extended features. Certainly depends on how much of their current cost is essentially ad sales and how much of that they can (and want to) cut. At least they are certainly much closer to that than anything Meta ever created or bought (with the exception of Oculus, which might certainly have been on a path to becoming a viable hardware company had it not received the Zuck's kiss of becoming deeply untrustable)
matthewdgreen 4y ago
But it will definitely temper my social media addiction, which will make me a lot more productive. So I'm rooting for it.
indymike 4y ago
I think a lot of them would pay a small amount to keep the cash flowing. They many not like it, but the leverage is on the platform's side until the audience moves.
throwayyy479087 4y ago
People have an extremely dependent relationship with Twitter. It’s more like gambling than media. They will absolutely pay.
- kspacewalk2 4y ago
  If we don't fund-raise and pay for $position_X_on_political_spectrum voices on Twitter to spread virtue and truth, the conversation will be hijacked by those goddamn $position_Y_on_political_spectrum shills and traitors!
baxtr 4y ago
It’s clearly a trade-off decision. If paying will give you access to a target audience people will pay. But I agree that you need some kind of business to be willing to pay.
kspacewalk2 4y ago
Yes it will, if those people are creating the content for some other goal - e.g. political, commercial, publicity, etc.
guywithahat 4y ago
I mean the entirety of Gab and the fediverse are based off of content producers paying to use the service
- cloutchaser 4y ago
  People pay gab? What?
  - guywithahat 4y ago
    Yeah Gab Pro, it lets you upload higher quality content, videos, and some other stuff including applying to get verified. It's how they made most of their money for a long time, ads are a recent thing for their site to my understanding. It's $15/month

aqme28 4y ago

You're more optimistic than I am that charging for verification would be an effective way to make money for Twitter. More likely I think it'll just lead to far fewer blue checks and no significant change of revenue.

osrec 4y ago
And it may also make the blue ticks meaningless, if just anyone can pay and get them.
- cma 4y ago
  That's how universities with donor and alumni preference work. They let in notable people more easily and people that test well may even get a scholarship, and others can bribe to be included in the club.
  - giaour 4y ago
    Bribing your way into an elite college costs a lot more than $20/month, though. As a society, we also confer prestige on a lot of things that basically amount to spending a prohibitively large sum of money: running a foundation; being an angel investor; owning a sports team, champion racehorse, Lamborghini, etc. But if just anybody can afford something and the only barrier to entry is cost, then it has no social currency.
    - usrusr 4y ago
      There are plenty of goods that work essentially like veblen goods but that are not really out of reach for anybody who is a non-zero amount of disposable beyond starvation. Converse shoes, Ray Ban shades, there's an endless list of brands that people pay a premium for to show off, despite not containing even the tiniest trace of that exclusivity that stems from being prohibitively expensive.
      - giaour 4y ago

vxNsr 4y ago

People fundamentally use Facebook differently than twitter, even if fb can be used as a public square, most ppl still use it to network with ppl they know (or used to know). Whereas twitter’s entire use case is talking to people who you’ve never met and likely never will. The point is that engagement is very different and no one cares about verification on fb. Editable posts have been a thing for years and I’m blanking on what other features are part of twitter blue but I doubt it’ll be enough to charge people $19.99/m

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

lupire 4y ago

Heavy users as in frequent posters: is just selling native advertising. It doesn't change the ad-suported model.

krisroadruck 4y ago
^ Been on twitter since the early days. I'm not much of a social creature by nature, but as a marketing channel, twitter has by far generated the most business for me over the years. I just be helpful in public, and when we need a new customer I literally just tweet "had some hours open up if anyone is looking for X" and just like magic we get a new customer. I wouldn't scoff at paying a little to keep that, but remove the non-native/boosted advertising from my feed.

zzuko 4y ago

Facebook or Instagram doesnt have monitization problem. Wouldn't this be short sighted / greedy?

cronix 4y ago

I actually think we should pay for the things we use. Then we can retire the "if you're not paying for the product, you are the product" excuse that many just automatically throw out to justify data collection.

egeozcan 4y ago
Most keep collecting data (making you the product) even when you pay for the product. MS Windows, Smart TVs, your graphics card driver, your popular news source even with the ad-free plan... It looks like you cannot pay them enough to get rid of the tracking.
pmoriarty 4y ago
You're going to be the product regardless. They'll just charge you on top of collecting and profiting from the data they collect on you.

shagie 4y ago

> I suspect if Elon can get away with charging many, and probably most, heavy users of the platform a monthly fee That's going really well so far... https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1587312517679878144 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1587312517679878144

pliftkl 4y ago

I would absolutely be willing to pay a monthly fee for a Facebook that wouldn't serve me ads or "suggested" things in my feed, and only showed me things that I explicitly said I was interested in. I'm curious how much I'm actually worth to FB under the advertising model, since that's going to dictate how much fee they would need to ditch advertising.