3 ms·
My idea, which I've posted before, is that you require users to pay to turn off the filter. (After all, if they're bad for ad revenue, they can't be "the produc
by scythe 4y ago
My idea, which I've posted before, is that you require users to pay to turn off the filter. (After all, if they're bad for ad revenue, they can't be "the product".) This also mostly enforces region-locking, at least requiring some effort to bypass.
- luckylion 4y agoIn what way would it enforce region-locking, and why would that be a good thing?
- scythe 4y agoUsually your payment method is tied to your country of residence (bank/currency), and from the platform's perspective (as a business) region-verification locks on content/behavior are demanded by national governments.
- luckylion 4y agoAh, so it would verify country of origin and then allow you to unlock some filter, while also applying a new one based on the country? Finally a problem that bitcoin reliably solves! "Here's my money, I'm from the internet, we have no censorship laws".
- giantrobot 4y agoBut that leads to dog wagging. Twitter as a platform would be incentivized to encourage hate speech etc in order to have something to entice people to pay to access it.
- scythe 4y agoThat is a concern. But I suspect the market for a moderated ad-supported Twitter is quite a bit larger than that for a paid unmoderated Twitter, and the elasticity you have to "promote hate speech" without really alienating people is not large — people already got mad at Facebook for counting "angry react" as engagement, and that's not even close to being hate speech. On the other hand, it also incentivizes aggressive moderation of the free section, since malingerers can be told to pay up.
- ilyt 4y agoPay to access to people arguing rudely is terrible business model