4 ms·

It’s not the $1, it’s the identity linked to the charge. So now they can be blocked as well as traced back to the funding account. I once was in a charity spon

It’s not the $1, it’s the identity linked to the charge. So now they can be blocked as well as traced back to the funding account. I once was in a charity sponsored therapy group and they had a $10 fee. I was annoyed as this was a pretty wealthy organization and the fee seemed discriminatory, or at least a hassle. I learned that it was just there to validate each participant. So I think this is just a filter to help reduce bot spam.

raverbashing 3y ago
Plenty of bots are paying the 5$ verified account It's a non-issue And of course a lot of them have the same X logo or Elon's picture, because His Xcellence probably fired the thinking heads dealing with spam
- godzillabrennus 3y ago
  I’m surprised he hasn’t asked his fanboys to volunteer to moderate. Reddit has volunteer moderation.
  - inversetelecine 3y ago
    And Reddit just got done crapping all over them, and they're still there working for free. I think X will be ok.
  - input_sh 3y ago
    What do you mean he hasn't, I'd definitely classify community notes as a volunteer-based moderation.
- nisegami 3y ago
  You need to follow up the payment barrier with identifying bots and the info (cc+contact) they used to verify their identity.
  - devnullbrain 3y ago
    Oh, just identify the bots.
SXX 3y ago
If X or Twitter or whatever accept payments via Apple Pay or Google Pay then there is absolutely no way to track anything. It's those services simply dont provide any information back to ex-Twitter. Also there is number of services like privacy.com that allow to hide real card details. And even if person is using real card then payment process have absolutely no way of knowing anything except those few last numbers of the card. Bypassing credit card checks for botting as easy as any other protections.
- johncolanduoni 3y ago
  When performing this kind of verification, you can easily (and usually do) block cards from services like privacy.com by looking at BIN codes. I also don’t think spammers can get large numbers of unique DPANs from Apple and Google Pay since that involves a cryptographic exchange between your device and Apple/Google with involvement from your issuing bank. Also most payment processors provide some sort of key that lets you identify if two users entered the same credit card number, for example Stripe[1]. So you’re not limited to last four digits for checking if two cards are the same. [1]: https://stripe.com/docs/api/cards/object#card_object-fingerprint https://stripe.com/docs/api/cards/object#card_object-fingerp...
  - freeone3000 3y ago
    You can get a ton of DPANS from Google Pay simply by logging in with a different Google account.
  - SXX 3y ago
    Yes you can block everything, but with every specific service blocked you limit your ability to accept new users. There also legitimate banks that let you have 5-10 virtual cards or generate unique card each time you pay. Spammers do have large number of unique phones in their farms as well as budget to have undetectible rooting and hardware ID faking. And Google Pay / Apple Pay as well as majority of banks actually do nothing to prevent you from adding your cards to 10 different phones. Of course it's all makes lives harder for everyone who want to get a new account, but nothing including literal ID / passport and face verification make is impossible to bypass.
sumeno 3y ago
Hope the bots don't discover stolen credit cards
- johncolanduoni 3y ago
  Stolen credit cards generally cost enough per number that getting one Twitter bot out of each is not going to be economically viable. Not to mention the fact that if the $1 is charged back, Twitter will know about it.
thathndude 3y ago
The backlash is funny. USPS does the same thing for mail forwarding to verify identity and legitimacy. It’s not like this is some crazy money-making idea from Elon.
- matthewdgreen 3y ago
  People need their mail, because they can't things like social security checks without it. It's not clear that anyone really needs Twitter, except for influencers and bot-shops.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  > It’s not like this is some crazy money-making idea from Elon. It's going to give him real name, street address, and zip/postal code for these users; for a company that makes most of its money off ads, that's absolutely money-making.
- orwin 3y ago
  I remember having to send a euro for a service (can't remember which, only that I was building my rack at the time, but it might have been for a car pooling service), but it was immediately reimbursed upon reception from the service provider.
chadash 3y ago
I think for the therapy group there’s also an aspect of wanting people to have some skin in the game. If you give something away for free, plenty of people will take it. But as soon as you put a mild obstacle in the way, even if it’s a small payment, you’ll weed out the people who don’t really want to be there.
matthewdgreen 3y ago
> It’s not the $1, it’s the identity linked to the charge. So now they can be blocked as well as traced back to the funding account. Do people on HN actually think this will work? I'm genuinely curious. Knowing everything we know about the underground economy of sockpuppets, bots and carders - combined the (un)willingness of real people (especially in relatively poorer countries) to pop out their credit card during signup for a social media site - do folks really think this will produce a high-quality stream of new signups?
- etchalon 3y ago
  It's not even about the quality of signups. It just will not solve the problem he's trying to solve. It will reduce low-effort and out-of-box tooling, but it'll also increase the value of successful networks, which will encourage better tooling and cover the mule costs.
wredue 3y ago
There’s a 0% chance that musk has any private interest in reducing bots. Bots was his excuse to try to get out of an obviously shitty deal that he made. That’s it.
littlestymaar 3y ago
It only works if you ban them in the first place! Given the current policy around blue tick (which is full of crypto bot and onlyfan sex workers, without any reaction from Musk whatsoever) I doubt it will have any effect. Also, World of Warcraft servers are full of bots, despite needing to pay to create and keep an account, so again it doesn't bode well.

raverbashing 3y ago

Plenty of bots are paying the 5$ verified account It's a non-issue And of course a lot of them have the same X logo or Elon's picture, because His Xcellence probably fired the thinking heads dealing with spam

godzillabrennus 3y ago
I’m surprised he hasn’t asked his fanboys to volunteer to moderate. Reddit has volunteer moderation.
- inversetelecine 3y ago
  And Reddit just got done crapping all over them, and they're still there working for free. I think X will be ok.
- input_sh 3y ago
  What do you mean he hasn't, I'd definitely classify community notes as a volunteer-based moderation.
nisegami 3y ago
You need to follow up the payment barrier with identifying bots and the info (cc+contact) they used to verify their identity.
- devnullbrain 3y ago
  Oh, just identify the bots.

SXX 3y ago

If X or Twitter or whatever accept payments via Apple Pay or Google Pay then there is absolutely no way to track anything. It's those services simply dont provide any information back to ex-Twitter. Also there is number of services like privacy.com that allow to hide real card details. And even if person is using real card then payment process have absolutely no way of knowing anything except those few last numbers of the card. Bypassing credit card checks for botting as easy as any other protections.

johncolanduoni 3y ago
When performing this kind of verification, you can easily (and usually do) block cards from services like privacy.com by looking at BIN codes. I also don’t think spammers can get large numbers of unique DPANs from Apple and Google Pay since that involves a cryptographic exchange between your device and Apple/Google with involvement from your issuing bank. Also most payment processors provide some sort of key that lets you identify if two users entered the same credit card number, for example Stripe[1]. So you’re not limited to last four digits for checking if two cards are the same. [1]: https://stripe.com/docs/api/cards/object#card_object-fingerprint https://stripe.com/docs/api/cards/object#card_object-fingerp...
- freeone3000 3y ago
  You can get a ton of DPANS from Google Pay simply by logging in with a different Google account.
- SXX 3y ago
  Yes you can block everything, but with every specific service blocked you limit your ability to accept new users. There also legitimate banks that let you have 5-10 virtual cards or generate unique card each time you pay. Spammers do have large number of unique phones in their farms as well as budget to have undetectible rooting and hardware ID faking. And Google Pay / Apple Pay as well as majority of banks actually do nothing to prevent you from adding your cards to 10 different phones. Of course it's all makes lives harder for everyone who want to get a new account, but nothing including literal ID / passport and face verification make is impossible to bypass.

sumeno 3y ago

Hope the bots don't discover stolen credit cards

johncolanduoni 3y ago
Stolen credit cards generally cost enough per number that getting one Twitter bot out of each is not going to be economically viable. Not to mention the fact that if the $1 is charged back, Twitter will know about it.

thathndude 3y ago

The backlash is funny. USPS does the same thing for mail forwarding to verify identity and legitimacy. It’s not like this is some crazy money-making idea from Elon.

matthewdgreen 3y ago
People need their mail, because they can't things like social security checks without it. It's not clear that anyone really needs Twitter, except for influencers and bot-shops.
ceejayoz 3y ago
> It’s not like this is some crazy money-making idea from Elon. It's going to give him real name, street address, and zip/postal code for these users; for a company that makes most of its money off ads, that's absolutely money-making.
orwin 3y ago
I remember having to send a euro for a service (can't remember which, only that I was building my rack at the time, but it might have been for a car pooling service), but it was immediately reimbursed upon reception from the service provider.

chadash 3y ago

I think for the therapy group there’s also an aspect of wanting people to have some skin in the game. If you give something away for free, plenty of people will take it. But as soon as you put a mild obstacle in the way, even if it’s a small payment, you’ll weed out the people who don’t really want to be there.

matthewdgreen 3y ago

> It’s not the $1, it’s the identity linked to the charge. So now they can be blocked as well as traced back to the funding account. Do people on HN actually think this will work? I'm genuinely curious. Knowing everything we know about the underground economy of sockpuppets, bots and carders - combined the (un)willingness of real people (especially in relatively poorer countries) to pop out their credit card during signup for a social media site - do folks really think this will produce a high-quality stream of new signups?

etchalon 3y ago
It's not even about the quality of signups. It just will not solve the problem he's trying to solve. It will reduce low-effort and out-of-box tooling, but it'll also increase the value of successful networks, which will encourage better tooling and cover the mule costs.

wredue 3y ago

There’s a 0% chance that musk has any private interest in reducing bots. Bots was his excuse to try to get out of an obviously shitty deal that he made. That’s it.

littlestymaar 3y ago

It only works if you ban them in the first place! Given the current policy around blue tick (which is full of crypto bot and onlyfan sex workers, without any reaction from Musk whatsoever) I doubt it will have any effect. Also, World of Warcraft servers are full of bots, despite needing to pay to create and keep an account, so again it doesn't bode well.