5 ms·
It should cost more than that. Make it clear that this is intended for corporations / brands and that this subsidizes regular people.
by olah_1 4y ago
It should cost more than that. Make it clear that this is intended for corporations / brands and that this subsidizes regular people.
- fshbbdssbbgdd 4y agoI think the idea is to encourage all non-bot users to pay for it. Or at least get a big portion of them, kind of like how it’s normal to pay for Spotify or Hulu.
- encryptluks2 4y agoIt's normal to pay for Spotify and Hulu because you get access to stream copyrighted materials monthly for a small fee. It would not be normal to pay for those services just to get a blue checkmark on your profile.
- fazfq 4y agoIt's not only a verification service, you get more features.
- qaq 4y agoverified account tweets get amplified so you are paying for that, also you are paying to reduce cybersquatting of your name (if it is of value to you)
- encryptluks2 4y agoYou would think the opposite would be true... amplifying tweets sounds an awful like turning it into a cesspool of marketers like LinkedIn.
- fshbbdssbbgdd 4y agoI suppose this is the value prop: 1. For people who post, you will be treated better by the ranking and spam systems. The blue checkmark may be like the “blue bubbles” iMessage thing where it’s not-so-subtly a marker of ingroup status. 2. For readers, you get to see less ads. I don’t use Twitter much, but I could imagine it being worth it for people who spend a lot of time on the app.
- encryptluks2 4y agoSo spammers can now pay $8 to better circumvent spam systems? Sounds like a terrible idea ripe for abuse.
- fshbbdssbbgdd 4y agoSpammers are usually cycling through accounts rapidly. If they pay, that gets a lot harder. You’d still enforce against spammers who pay the $8, but the requirement to pay will reduce the volume and make the problem more manageable.
- encryptluks2 4y agoI guess it depends on what your definition of spam is. I think it people are paying to be promoted then it is the same as an ad, and to me ads are a form of spam if I don't want to see them.
- ergocoder 4y ago$8 doesn't sound like the right price either. Most users will not be able to afford this (not that they can't pay it with their saving. It isn't worth it).
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- someNameIG 4y agoWhich doesn't go with the idea of a public square free speech platform. Real public squares don't require you to pay to enter. And actual free speech should be influenced by those who are willing and/or able to pay for the privilege https://twitter.com/somebadideas/status/1588876465915166721?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1588876465915166721%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url= https://twitter.com/somebadideas/status/1588876465915166721?...
- VWWHFSfQ 4y agoI doubt anyone is really going to care all that much if all the unchecked randos lose their voice on twitter. It will clean up the noise by a lot.
- olah_1 4y agoIf that is the “normal people” tier, it’s too much. I should not pay the same as McDonalds or even a C list celebrity. I would swing $4 if they added encrypted DMs.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- newsclues 4y agoThere should be a separate tier for corporations. There should be a tier for content creators, journalists, and others who use it for work. Politicians and governments should pay something. But for average people sure pay a few bucks a month or become the product.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]