4 ms·

If enough people pay, I imagine then yes. That would be highly beneficial, valuable to society.

by loceng 4y ago

themoonisachees 4y ago
If enough people pay, why would they remove it? Clearly their costumer base isn't expecting the ads to go away, why would you remove a revenue stream? Removing ads from everywhere would be a benefit to society but clearly musk isn't going for philanthropy (reminder that he could have solved world hunger for a fraction of the price he paid for Twitter)
- loceng 4y ago
  "(reminder that he could have solved world hunger for a fraction of the price he paid for Twitter)" You added that as a joke, right? You don't actually believe that?
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    There's an implied "per year", but this is easy to look up[1]. In all honesty, I'm probably going to trust WFPUSA over a cynical HN user I don't know. But it doesn't really matter what the number is. If it's too low then we'll get the "the number is too low, you can't believe they'll actually be able to do it for that much" and if it's too high we'll get "That's too much - basically a non-starter. It will never happen." So, it's probably best to end the conversation in stalemate. 1. https://www.wfpusa.org/articles/how-much-would-it-cost-to-end-world-hunger/# https://www.wfpusa.org/articles/how-much-would-it-cost-to-en...
    - loceng 4y ago
      So we just have to stop the military industrial complex and problem solved! Likewise, it's a good thing Elon is attempting to disrupt the attack on free speech.
      - kelseyfrog 4y ago
        It might be a good time to revisit the commenting guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html I hope you have a nice weekend.
        loceng 4y ago
        Fake nice is ugly. P.S. I'm not cynical, perhaps you meant to say skeptical; if it truly was only $40 billion per year then every country in the world would quickly pay their share to fund that.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      The $40B and $6B plans are not the same thing. $40B per year could supposedly end world hunger, but it's not a fraction of twitter's cost and he can't afford that much. $6B would do a lot of good, and he could afford it, but it won't end world hunger. And it stops being a fraction of twitter's cost if you want to keep it up for more than 2-3 years.
PhasmaFelis 4y ago
If every single one of Twitter's currently registered users agreed to pay for their checkmark, it would cover less than 3% of Twitter's yearly interest costs since Musk's buyout financing. The man himself said he wants to bring ad revenue down to just half of Twitter's income, and he's got no practical plan to even do that much. Twitter going ad-free is a pipe dream.

If enough people pay, I imagine then yes. That would be highly beneficial, valuable to society.

by loceng 4y ago

If enough people pay, I imagine then yes. That would be highly beneficial, valuable to society.

If enough people pay, why would they remove it? Clearly their costumer base isn't expecting the ads to go away, why would you remove a revenue stream? Removing ads from everywhere would be a benefit to society but clearly musk isn't going for philanthropy (reminder that he could have solved world hunger for a fraction of the price he paid for Twitter)

loceng 4y ago
"(reminder that he could have solved world hunger for a fraction of the price he paid for Twitter)" You added that as a joke, right? You don't actually believe that?
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  There's an implied "per year", but this is easy to look up[1]. In all honesty, I'm probably going to trust WFPUSA over a cynical HN user I don't know. But it doesn't really matter what the number is. If it's too low then we'll get the "the number is too low, you can't believe they'll actually be able to do it for that much" and if it's too high we'll get "That's too much - basically a non-starter. It will never happen." So, it's probably best to end the conversation in stalemate. 1. https://www.wfpusa.org/articles/how-much-would-it-cost-to-end-world-hunger/# https://www.wfpusa.org/articles/how-much-would-it-cost-to-en...
  - loceng 4y ago
    So we just have to stop the military industrial complex and problem solved! Likewise, it's a good thing Elon is attempting to disrupt the attack on free speech.
    - kelseyfrog 4y ago
      It might be a good time to revisit the commenting guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html I hope you have a nice weekend.
      - loceng 4y ago
        Fake nice is ugly. P.S. I'm not cynical, perhaps you meant to say skeptical; if it truly was only $40 billion per year then every country in the world would quickly pay their share to fund that.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    The $40B and $6B plans are not the same thing. $40B per year could supposedly end world hunger, but it's not a fraction of twitter's cost and he can't afford that much. $6B would do a lot of good, and he could afford it, but it won't end world hunger. And it stops being a fraction of twitter's cost if you want to keep it up for more than 2-3 years.

PhasmaFelis 4y ago

If every single one of Twitter's currently registered users agreed to pay for their checkmark, it would cover less than 3% of Twitter's yearly interest costs since Musk's buyout financing. The man himself said he wants to bring ad revenue down to just half of Twitter's income, and he's got no practical plan to even do that much. Twitter going ad-free is a pipe dream.