who would pay to get yelled at by some guy who thinks your opinion on toasted sandwiches is not that amusing? you want people to pay to communicate online? the

who would pay to get yelled at by some guy who thinks your opinion on toasted sandwiches is not that amusing? you want people to pay to communicate online? then you have to separate out the communication from the 'outside', and charge for access to that bubble. and you can't lie about the degree of separation, or it all breaks down to free-services again. twitter as a free-for-all across society into people's tweets (readers, bot scrapers, governments, market researchers, moms, journalists, ai bros, ect) has killed it's ability to charge for access. well it never had the capability to charge for access. if you make a bullet proof bubble and then open up the communication to market forces and government spying, (even in name only) then people will publicly say it's okay but the service will lose it's value and the service will descend into freedom again where nobody values it enough to pay. the craving for security and the belief that all computer communications must run through the government and market scrapers, at all costs, has destroyed the ability to charge for access to information, the basic lifeblood and commodity of the internet. the west and the western internet is in a bad place, because you cannot have a truly private conversation, for free and for money.