4 ms·

I want this. I HATE ads. I hate that the revenue models require ads. I pay for VPN. I pay for email. I use twitter a lot. Would pay $10/month easy. As someone

I want this. I HATE ads. I hate that the revenue models require ads. I pay for VPN. I pay for email. I use twitter a lot. Would pay $10/month easy. As someone on the right, I also cannot trust, rely on, or build anything on any platform or network that is ad based. The crazys will come for anything I create, eventually. With tactics like 24/7 harassment to advertisers that just want the problem to go away. It's terrorist in nature. Ad based revenue equates to censorship for some, due to the weak chokepoint/painpoint of advertisers. Advertisers should care about revenue, regardless of the customer. Noone ever said "there's a donut ad on daily stormer. I'm not buying those donuts anymore" It's the activists that lie, pretend to be pissed off customers, harass and threaten, and create the illusion of outrage. Anyone saying twitter should die because of this doesn't understand the gamble of global dominance. Elon wants to own the "everything" app. Advertising dollars are not compatible with an everything app.

strangattractor 4y ago
Not quite sure why you think subscriptions will protect you from crazies. The subscription model will not replace ad revenue as the dominate revenue model at Twitter. Musk hopes it will help Twitter survive his ownership. Therefore people not paying the subscription will still see ads when viewing your content. If they happen to be "crazy" they will still harass you. The reason there are no ads in the "Daily Stormer". No one but neo Nazis read it. Since - thank God - there are only a small number of such people (currently) the market for things that would interest the neo Nazi demographic is small and hardly worth the cost of offending those of us that find neo Nazis offensive or maybe even evil. Given the state Twitter is in - Musk would likely throw his support behind the "Daily Stormer" if he thought it would bring in revenue.
- aquarium87 4y ago
  It takes away power. Doesn't matter if 1/2 still use ads. Paying users can then exert power over Twitter as well. It's not the crazy harrassign me. It's the crazy doing an end run around me and leveraging the choke point of advertising, where several thousand nasty emails and phone calls are enough to get most all advertisers to say anything to stop the pain. I don't have to deal with it. Now I also have a painpoint to infect damages against Twitter if I choose. That takes monetary commitment. A more balanced future is where crazy exert pressure on advertisers, and customers exert pressure on twitter. The advertisers give in, twitter and advertisers lose. Advertisers start realizing its a lose lose and all the boycotts are fake anyway as online lynch mobs don't purchase their products anyway. Hopefully, after all that pain, we can get back to live and let live. Because the alternative is a dual economy where everyone loses. As for dailystormer, that's just an example. And a repugnant one that got me lots of down votes. Oh well, such is intolerance ;)
  - strangattractor 4y ago
    As with all things capitalistic it is about who pays the bills. Ad revenue will always likely be the major source of income for the Twitter - that and selling your info. The subscription model has done little to change that. The NYT and WSJ both require a subscription. Haven't noticed much change in their behavior regarding the influence of advertisers. Musk wants to build an "Everything App" by everything I mean he wants to know everything about you. This will allow him to reach far deeper into your pants or rather pockets. If it does payments he will know what you buy. If you recommend Yeezys in tweet to a friend he will know about it. Where you get that latte each day no problem etc. With a press of a button he can make things go viral - like when he called the guy who saved the Thai kids the "pedo guy". I'll take a hard pass on that. https://futurism.com/tiktok-secret-button-viral https://futurism.com/tiktok-secret-button-viral

strangattractor 4y ago

Not quite sure why you think subscriptions will protect you from crazies. The subscription model will not replace ad revenue as the dominate revenue model at Twitter. Musk hopes it will help Twitter survive his ownership. Therefore people not paying the subscription will still see ads when viewing your content. If they happen to be "crazy" they will still harass you. The reason there are no ads in the "Daily Stormer". No one but neo Nazis read it. Since - thank God - there are only a small number of such people (currently) the market for things that would interest the neo Nazi demographic is small and hardly worth the cost of offending those of us that find neo Nazis offensive or maybe even evil. Given the state Twitter is in - Musk would likely throw his support behind the "Daily Stormer" if he thought it would bring in revenue.

aquarium87 4y ago
It takes away power. Doesn't matter if 1/2 still use ads. Paying users can then exert power over Twitter as well. It's not the crazy harrassign me. It's the crazy doing an end run around me and leveraging the choke point of advertising, where several thousand nasty emails and phone calls are enough to get most all advertisers to say anything to stop the pain. I don't have to deal with it. Now I also have a painpoint to infect damages against Twitter if I choose. That takes monetary commitment. A more balanced future is where crazy exert pressure on advertisers, and customers exert pressure on twitter. The advertisers give in, twitter and advertisers lose. Advertisers start realizing its a lose lose and all the boycotts are fake anyway as online lynch mobs don't purchase their products anyway. Hopefully, after all that pain, we can get back to live and let live. Because the alternative is a dual economy where everyone loses. As for dailystormer, that's just an example. And a repugnant one that got me lots of down votes. Oh well, such is intolerance ;)
- strangattractor 4y ago
  As with all things capitalistic it is about who pays the bills. Ad revenue will always likely be the major source of income for the Twitter - that and selling your info. The subscription model has done little to change that. The NYT and WSJ both require a subscription. Haven't noticed much change in their behavior regarding the influence of advertisers. Musk wants to build an "Everything App" by everything I mean he wants to know everything about you. This will allow him to reach far deeper into your pants or rather pockets. If it does payments he will know what you buy. If you recommend Yeezys in tweet to a friend he will know about it. Where you get that latte each day no problem etc. With a press of a button he can make things go viral - like when he called the guy who saved the Thai kids the "pedo guy". I'll take a hard pass on that. https://futurism.com/tiktok-secret-button-viral https://futurism.com/tiktok-secret-button-viral