Merged Musk buys Twitter!/ Elon Musk puts Twitter deal on hold....

[Checkmite]

That's not the argument at all. The point is that King wants people who have a harder time paying than he does to pay so that he doesn't have to.

That has nothing to do with it.

The relevant facts are,

1. Twitter already ruthlessly monetizes "blue checks"' usage data

2. Blue checks' activity drives more users and traffic to the site

3. Twitter ruthlessly monetizes all those peoples' usage data too

And now Musk wants people to directly pay even more money on top of what they already generate in sellable data and advertising revenue? Pointedly keeping all of the worst things about the "free internet service" model, but also now it's not even free?

 

[Ziggurat]

He does? Where did he say that?

You are correct, that was TGZ, though he credited King with the idea.

Stephen King is absolutely right: Twitter should court its top accounts, and charge those who still have to make a name for themselves.

I shouldn't trust TGZ's characterizations, my bad.

 

[Ziggurat]

This is a nonsensical line of reasoning... you realize that if celebrities stop using Twitter, that Twitter will fall apart right?

You say that like it's a bad thing.

 

[Checkmite]

I think Musk actually wants journalists and scientists to refuse to pay and be de-authenticated because the existence of "verified accounts" implies a hierarchy of information credibility, which undermines his vision of a source-agnostic forum in which a genuine expert's opinion on a topic isn't visually distinguishable from the local Q-nut's ravings.

I know that's not the only use/purpose for a "blue check" in reality, and I know that scientists and journalists aren't the only ones who get them; but it is the angle of the issue that is most important to Musk.

Hey look I was right for once

The blue check merely verifies a user's identity, it doesn't confer any features or actual usage benefits; yet according to Musk a source being verified makes them "lords" and unverified Twitter users "peasants".

His answer to this is to paywall verification, because separating users by ability to pay is definitely antithetical to a lord/peasant heirarchy.

 

[wareyin]

You are correct, that was TGZ, though he credited King with the idea.

Stephen King is absolutely right: Twitter should court its top accounts, and charge those who still have to make a name for themselves.

I shouldn't trust TGZ's characterizations, my bad.

Looking at what King and TGZ wrote, and then reading your characterization of both/either of them, it's pretty obvious who is mischaracterizing what was said or intended, here. We're all better off not trusting Zig's characterizations, based on this little bit of tomfoolery.

 

[Ziggurat]

His answer to this is to paywall verification, because separating users by ability to pay is definitely antithetical to a lord/peasant heirarchy.

Well, yes, actually it is. He's introducing a middle class, which has traditionally been the real antagonists to the nobility. That doesn't eliminate the lower class.

 

[Checkmite]

Well, yes, actually it is. He's introducing a middle class, which has traditionally been the real antagonists to the nobility. That doesn't eliminate the lower class.

Has blue check/doesn't have blue check is binary.

 

[lobosrul5]

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Its certainly a bad thing for Twitter's revenue. They literally have nothing if popular people don't provide content.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

If Musk is really a freedom of speech absolutist then the verification system should be abandoned. If I have absolute freedom to say whatever I want, I can say that I am someone else... like Elon Musk. Of course he isn't, if I make a convincing account that I'm Elon Musk and start trashing his companies, it won't be long til my account is banned.

Again, what Musk actually said back then was that you should be able to say it IF IT'S NOT ILLEGAL TO SAY IT. His argument was explicitly that we already have a democracy and the vote of the people (well, at least theoretically) to rule what can be said and what not.

Not that he'd even have a choice to go any further than that, really. I don't think he wants to go on record as saying he wants to break the law. Nor even that he plans to aid and abet in breaking the law.

At any rate, it never was some hypothetical extremes, based on your own interpretation of a two-word phrase taken out of any context.

Point in case: I'm pretty sure that libel was illegal in some form or another since the flippin' high middle ages. Depending on who you impersonate and to what end, you may also fall afoul of laws dealing explicitly with that. Such as impersonating a police officer, which is a federal crime and can land you up to 5 years in prison. Or impersonating a government official, which is also a federal crime and with penalties of up to 3 years in prison.

So yeah, no, he can't go on record saying that he plans to facilitate those

 

[lobosrul5]

Again, what Musk actually said back then was that you should be able to say it IF IT'S NOT ILLEGAL TO SAY IT. His argument was explicitly that we already have a democracy and the vote of the people (well, at least theoretically) to rule what can be said and what not.

Not that he'd even have a choice to go any further than that, really. I don't think he wants to go on record as saying he wants to break the law. Nor even that he plans to aid and abet in breaking the law.

At any rate, it never was some hypothetical extremes, based on your own interpretation of a two-word phrase taken out of any context.

Point in case: I'm pretty sure that libel was illegal in some form or another since the flippin' high middle ages. Depending on who you impersonate and to what end, you may also fall afoul of laws dealing explicitly with that. Such as impersonating a police officer, which is a federal crime and can land you up to 5 years in prison. Or impersonating a government official, which is also a federal crime and with penalties of up to 3 years in prison.

So yeah, no, he can't go on record saying that he plans to facilitate those

Libel is not a criminal offense in the United States, its covered under tort law, and the burden of proof is pretty damned high.

And yeah impersonating officials or police officers is illegal, but Musk is neither of those. I also don't believe a forum facilitating someone to impersonate an official is illegal.

I really believe Musk bought Twitter with the plan of turning it into a totally open forum, in which they themselves would not police any content. Just let the courts decide if something has to be taken down. And he's going to run into several roadblocks due to you know... reality. Like advertisers leaving in droves, and countries not named The United States banning Twitter for allowing things like hate speech.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Hey look I was right for once

[qimg]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fgfx_nwXkAELWbJ?format=png&name=small[/qimg]

The blue check merely verifies a user's identity, it doesn't confer any features or actual usage benefits; yet according to Musk a source being verified makes them "lords" and unverified Twitter users "peasants".

His answer to this is to paywall verification, because separating users by ability to pay is definitely antithetical to a lord/peasant heirarchy.

It would be better if he just stuck to his "I gotta pay the bills" argument. That at least is truthful.

Playing the "grand egalitarian" role just isn't a good fit, and makes me laugh, honestly.

 

[Checkmite]

It would be better if he just stuck to his "I gotta pay the bills" argument. That at least is truthful.

Playing the "grand egalitarian" role just isn't a good fit, and makes me laugh, honestly.

Particularly when his grand announcement makes it explicit that users who don't/can't pay for Twitter Blue are now going to suffer for it with a poor user experience and de-prioritization.

 

[Rolfe]

He talks as if people care. I think most people dick around on Twitter when they feel like it, but if the quality of their interactions with the platform deteriorates they'll just stop feeling like it and wander off to do something else instead.

 

[I Am The Scum]

His answer to this is to paywall verification, because separating users by ability to pay is definitely antithetical to a lord/peasant heirarchy.

This is the dumbest idea. Why wouldn't scammers just pay the 8 bucks to give their schemes more visibility?

 

[I Am The Scum]

He's dumber than I thought

Yes, this will destroy the bots. If a paid Blue account engages in spam/scam, that account will be suspended.

Essentially, this raises the cost of crime on Twitter by several orders of magnitude.

He really thinks a $8 tax is going to deter spammers.

 

[Ziggurat]

He really thinks a $8 tax is going to deter spammers.

There seems to be a conflation going on here between bots and spammers. They are not the same thing at all. Bots don't earn money by the messages they send/post, they earn money by following people who want to be followed and will pay for follows.

I'll give you a concrete example. Here's a company that sells follows on Twitter:
https://risekarma.com/
You can buy 10,000 follows for $110, or 1.1 cents per follow. That's economical for the bot company as long as the bot accounts are free to create, but impossible of there's any cost.

But if most people aren't buying premium accounts, the bots won't have to either, so I'm not sure how this solves anything. Unless he's not really talking about the bots but other scammers.

 

[Ziggurat]

Has blue check/doesn't have blue check is binary.

Yeah, but if basically anyone can get one if they pay (and $8 a month is affordable to most people in the US even if it's not worth it for a lot of them), then that's no longer a badge of nobility. It's no longer an exclusive by-invitation-only club.

 

[dudalb]

That has nothing to do with it.

The relevant facts are,

1. Twitter already ruthlessly monetizes "blue checks"' usage data

2. Blue checks' activity drives more users and traffic to the site

3. Twitter ruthlessly monetizes all those peoples' usage data too

And now Musk wants people to directly pay even more money on top of what they already generate in sellable data and advertising revenue? Pointedly keeping all of the worst things about the "free internet service" model, but also now it's not even free?

Musk is going to fins out it's really hard to get people to pay for something they have been..or think they have been..getting for free.

 

[dudalb]

Real issue is going to be what Musk does when the bigots flood Twitter.
And it's not like it was a few years ago when Twitter was the only game in town.
I wonder how long until Musk looses interest in his newest toy.

 

[dudalb]

Hey look I was right for once

[qimg]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fgfx_nwXkAELWbJ?format=png&name=small[/qimg]

The blue check merely verifies a user's identity, it doesn't confer any features or actual usage benefits; yet according to Musk a source being verified makes them "lords" and unverified Twitter users "peasants".

His answer to this is to paywall verification, because separating users by ability to pay is definitely antithetical to a lord/peasant heirarchy.

And no one but a few morons and his die hard fanboys will buy Musk's 'Man of the People" BS.