4 ms·

And it may also make the blue ticks meaningless, if just anyone can pay and get them.

by osrec 4y ago

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
      The last clause in your comment is doing a lot of work. Prohibitive cost is only one form of exclusivity, but there are many others. For example, Twitter’s blue checks are free today but difficult to obtain. It sounds like Twitter is looking to replace the current system of exclusivity with one based on cost, and $20/month just isn’t very exclusive.
  - cma 4y ago
    > Bribing your way into an elite college costs a lot more than $20/month, though. So will the checkmark once they price discriminate on wealth or follower count.
    - giaour 4y ago
      I just don’t see how that’s workable as a business strategy. If Twitter charges you for a blue check, the social value of the mark will go down. If they simultaneously charge higher prices based on the wealth of the subscriber, that’s asking wealthy tweeters for a lot of money for something whose value has been significantly diluted.
      - cma 4y ago
        It depends on if they still have the notability requirement; if they just charge $20 and anyone can get it then it definitely devalues the whole thing (the whole value of the mark other than as a signal is access to DM other notable people; if anyone can pay $20 to DM celebrities and stuff celebrities will turn off blue check mark DMs or if there is no option just ignore DMs entirely, which then kills the journalism loop on Twitter where journalists get access to celebrities, politicians, etc. by having the mark).
matwood 4y ago
Not meaningless if they still do verification (which afaik they would).
ryandvm 4y ago
Not meaningless, paid blue checkmark would mean that somebody has a business interest in their use of Twitter (which means they're marketing to me). Now I know exactly which accounts to not follow.

And it may also make the blue ticks meaningless, if just anyone can pay and get them.

by 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
    The last clause in your comment is doing a lot of work. Prohibitive cost is only one form of exclusivity, but there are many others. For example, Twitter’s blue checks are free today but difficult to obtain. It sounds like Twitter is looking to replace the current system of exclusivity with one based on cost, and $20/month just isn’t very exclusive.
- cma 4y ago
  > Bribing your way into an elite college costs a lot more than $20/month, though. So will the checkmark once they price discriminate on wealth or follower count.
  - giaour 4y ago
    I just don’t see how that’s workable as a business strategy. If Twitter charges you for a blue check, the social value of the mark will go down. If they simultaneously charge higher prices based on the wealth of the subscriber, that’s asking wealthy tweeters for a lot of money for something whose value has been significantly diluted.
    - cma 4y ago
      It depends on if they still have the notability requirement; if they just charge $20 and anyone can get it then it definitely devalues the whole thing (the whole value of the mark other than as a signal is access to DM other notable people; if anyone can pay $20 to DM celebrities and stuff celebrities will turn off blue check mark DMs or if there is no option just ignore DMs entirely, which then kills the journalism loop on Twitter where journalists get access to celebrities, politicians, etc. by having the mark).

matwood 4y ago

Not meaningless if they still do verification (which afaik they would).

ryandvm 4y ago

Not meaningless, paid blue checkmark would mean that somebody has a business interest in their use of Twitter (which means they're marketing to me). Now I know exactly which accounts to not follow.