Is a blue checkmark worth $20 a month?

[beowulf]

This guy is really a clown who throws crap at the wall and hopes most of it sticks which is does not as people don't see to know all his failed ideas.

Elon Musk joked that his Twitter business model was inspired by British surreal comedy group Monty Python

The billionaire made the comments in response to a tweet where he doubled down on his decision to charge for Twitter verification.

www.businessinsider.com

Amusingly, one prominent figure to criticize Musk's plans to charge users was Monty Python member Eric Idle. Idle, who does not appear in the sketch Musk shared, tweeted Monday to say he'd likely leave Twitter if he had to pay.

"I'm sure Elon will want to start making his money back," Idle wrote in a tweet on Monday. "But if he charges me to entertain you, and he let's the orange monster back, I think I may decline," he added, apparently referencing Musk's reported plan to reinstate Donald Trump's account.

 

[tacogeoff]

And there ya go, as some predicted above, Twitter will get into paywall protected porn.

Twitter is reportedly working on an OnlyFans-style feature that would allow creators to charge for video content — but some employees say it's high risk

One worker told the Washington Post that it seemed like a feature that would probably be used at least partly for adult content.

www.businessinsider.com

Twitter is working on a feature that would charge users for some video content, The Washington Post reported.

Referred to as "Paywalled Video," the new feature would allow content creators to charge users a fee to view videos on the platform, according to an internal email obtained by the publication.

The Post reported that a Twitter employee, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said it seemed like a feature that would probably be used at least partly for adult content.

The report added that the move could place Twitter in competition with sites that have an emphasis on adult content.

Ya its really not that bad according to the article. it's up to the creator or twitter user if they want to charge for their content. Twitter will take a percent, but it creates an additional revenue stream for creators if they wish to charge for their content.


According to the internal email describing the new video feature, which has not yet been announced, “When a creator composes a tweet with a video, the creator can enable the paywall once a video has been added to the tweet.” They can then choose from a preset list of prices, such as $1, $2, $5 or $10.

This guy is really a clown who throws crap at the wall and hopes most of it sticks which is does not as people don't see to know all his failed ideas.

Elon Musk joked that his Twitter business model was inspired by British surreal comedy group Monty Python

The billionaire made the comments in response to a tweet where he doubled down on his decision to charge for Twitter verification.

www.businessinsider.com

Amusingly, one prominent figure to criticize Musk's plans to charge users was Monty Python member Eric Idle. Idle, who does not appear in the sketch Musk shared, tweeted Monday to say he'd likely leave Twitter if he had to pay.

"I'm sure Elon will want to start making his money back," Idle wrote in a tweet on Monday. "But if he charges me to entertain you, and he let's the orange monster back, I think I may decline," he added, apparently referencing Musk's reported plan to reinstate Donald Trump's account.

All write offs for these celebrities. sounds like its more of a political stance than a money issue.

 

[beowulf]

Ya its really not that bad according to the article. it's up to the creator or twitter user if they want to charge for their content. Twitter will take a percent, but it creates an additional revenue stream for creators if they wish to charge for their content.


According to the internal email describing the new video feature, which has not yet been announced, “When a creator composes a tweet with a video, the creator can enable the paywall once a video has been added to the tweet.” They can then choose from a preset list of prices, such as $1, $2, $5 or $10.



All write offs for these celebrities. sounds like its more of a political stance than a money issue.

The fact that they are willing to go to a route that allows an increase in porn shows that all he cares about it the money.

Again, it's not about write offs or the money it's about the principle that many of these celebrities are what brings people to join twitter and read tweets so why should they pay for that? If anything, twitter should be paying them for each tweet, re=tweet etc. like You Tube does for content creators.

 

[tacogeoff]

The fact that they are willing to go to a route that allows an increase in porn shows that all he cares about it the money.

Again, it's not about write offs or the money it's about the principle that many of these celebrities are what brings people to join twitter and read tweets so why should they pay for that? If anything, twitter should be paying them for each tweet, re=tweet etc. like You Tube does for content creators.

Yes well it is also a business that he has invested heavily in. Why would you not look for alternative means of revenue. Increase in porn shows? i mean if someone wants to pay for it then whatever i guess..... why does that bother you?

They can still tweet and retweet. they just won't get a special blue checkmark if they are too cheap to pay 240 a year.......so their complaint is kind of moot but i guess they must need to feel some kind of special.

 

[John Price]

Why would anyone goto Twitter for adult material. Just a stupid decision.

 

[Dolemite]

Twitter is about narcissism for many and people are narcissistic aren't they?

They aren't exactly tweeting using anonymous handles on blogs like before twitter ruined the internet.

It's about being social. You know, 'social media'.

 

[Beau Knows]

At least this latest plan could theoretically bring in more than $32 million a year, so it makes more sense than the checkmark idea. I don't know if it would be popular enough, but it's not as pointlessly stupid.

But Twitter generates nearly $5 billion a year in ad revenue, it's hard to see any of these plans replacing that revenue stream. And Musk might need to find a way to do that to some extent, should he follow through with his promise of being a "free speech absolutist", as the ad revenue could decrease if they site becomes filled with more content that potential advertisers do not want to associate themselves with.

So for Musk it's going to be a careful balancing act of avoiding looking like a hypocrite while trying to keep the ad revenue from drying up, if he can't completely change Twitter's business model. It was easy for him to criticize Twitter when they banned anyone, but now it's his money at stake.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

It's about being social. You know, 'social media'.

You post your own tweets on this very board. I don't think you're in any position to genuinely grasp what he's talking about.

 

[beowulf]

At least this latest plan could theoretically bring in more than $32 million a year, so it makes more sense than the checkmark idea. I don't know if it would be popular enough, but it's not as pointlessly stupid.

But Twitters generates nearly $5 billion a year in ad revenue, it's hard to see any of these plans replacing that revenue stream. And Musk might need to find a way to do that to some extent, should he follow through with his promise of being a "free speech absolutist", as the ad revenue could decrease if they site becomes filled with more content that potential advertisers do not want to associate themselves with.

So for Musk it's going to be a careful balancing act of avoiding looking like a hypocrite while trying to keep the ad revenue from drying up if he can't completely change Twitter's business model. It was easy for him to criticize Twitter when they banned anyone, but now it's his money at stake.

Indeed this could make some money depending how much it is adopted by content creators. But it becomes a juggling act as to whether it pisses off users and more importantly advertisers their main source of revenue.

Just like he has stepped back on his big declarations before that he will allow all banned people back. Now he is saying it will be weeks before that happens and if he pisses of advertisers it will hurt the bottom line.

 

[Dolemite]

You post your own tweets on this very board. I don't think you're in any position to genuinely grasp what he's talking about.

Yes and your point is? Is there a question there somewhere?

 

[beowulf]

Yes well it is also a business that he has invested heavily in. Why would you not look for alternative means of revenue. Increase in porn shows? i mean if someone wants to pay for it then whatever i guess..... why does that bother you?

They can still tweet and retweet. they just won't get a special blue checkmark if they are too cheap to pay 240 a year.......so their complaint is kind of moot but i guess they must need to feel some kind of special.

Does not really bother me but it very well could bother many advertisers to be associated with a site that allows porn. It's them they have to worry about.

I guess you have not seen how many who have the blue checkmark say it can be important to fight against fake accounts in their name etc. Charging for that is just dumb if it is the only way to confirm the person that is tweeting is the real deal.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Yes and your point is? Is there a question there somewhere?

No, it was an observation. Hence the lack of a question mark.

My point is that posting your own tweets on HF is narcissistic to the extreme so it's not surprising you don't get his comment.

 

[tacogeoff]

Does not really bother me but it very well could bother many advertisers to be associated with a site that allows porn. It's them they have to worry about.

I guess you have not seen how many who have the blue checkmark say it can be important to fight against fake accounts in their name etc. Charging for that is just dumb if it is the only way to confirm the person that is tweeting is the real deal.

who is to say it will be allowing porn. the Twitter employee you quoted said that the paywall will be used partly for adult content. adult content is anything that is deemed improper for minors. it can be sexually suggestive material, violent content, profain language etc etc. to narrow it down to porn when no one said it is going to be just used for porn is kind of hyperbolic. furthermore, regular i am assuming certified creators can charge people a fee if they chose to do so to see their videos creations, pranks etc based on the supposed information in the article.

the "real deal" person probably has millions of followers compared to fake accounts. if a person is too slow to decipher what account is the real one then they probably shouldn't be on the internet/social media. there are also problem-solving ways around this. Don't pay for the check mark then maybe you have to click on the user and in their and somewhere on there it states they are official

i personally dont use twitter. so maybe that's why i don't feel like it is a big deal. tried it for a year but it is a very toxic environment.

 

[Dolemite]

No, it was an observation. Hence the lack of a question mark.

My point is that posting your own tweets on HF is narcissistic to the extreme so it's not surprising you don't get his comment.

 

[beowulf]

who is to say it will be allowing porn. the Twitter employee you quoted said that the paywall will be used partly for adult content. adult content is anything that is deemed improper for minors. it can be sexually suggestive material, violent content, profain language etc etc. to narrow it down to porn when no one said it is going to be just used for porn is kind of hyperbolic. furthermore, regular i am assuming certified creators can charge people a fee if they chose to do so to see their videos creations, pranks etc based on the supposed information in the article.

the "real deal" person probably has millions of followers compared to fake accounts. if a person is too slow to decipher what account is the real one then they probably shouldn't be on the internet/social media. there are also problem-solving ways around this. Don't pay for the check mark then maybe you have to click on the user and in their and somewhere on there it states they are official

i personally dont use twitter. so maybe that's why i don't feel like it is a big deal. tried it for a year but it is a very toxic environment.

Generally people tend to call anything with nudity etc. porn but we can call it adult content if you want. How many big advertisers do so on sites with adult content? Heck how many will want to have their adds show up with violent content etc.? This sounds like it has the potential to cut off their nose to spite the twitter face, they better hope any addition revenue from covers any loss from advertising.

From the Washington Post article

But the team has “identified the risk as high,” according to the email, which was sent by an employee on Twitter’s “Product Trust” team. The email cites “risks related to copyrighted content, creator/user trust issues, and legal compliance” and says the feature will undergo a brief internal review on those issues before moving forward.

...

The email doesn’t specify what types of videos creators might post, though it does raise the concern that users might post copyrighted content or use the feature to scam others. One Twitter employee, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal plans, said it seemed like a feature that would probably be used at least partly for adult content.

....

Most big advertisers shun NSFW content and are hesitant to advertise on platforms that have a reputation for containing pornography. The marketing industry has had conversations about the issue with Twitter over the years, according to an executive at one of the largest advertising agencies who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Rivals such as Facebook and TikTok do not allow pornographic content.

So they could be creating a new revenue stream that could hurt their main revenue stream and also create more costs if they need to now have a content review team or whatever else. Musk has also said the blue checkmark is only the start as he wants to find more ways of charging users.

Right now about 13% of twitters content is NSFW and this could jump significantly and people are wondering if the increased revue will off-set potential losses.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Cringy.

 

[tacogeoff]

Generally people tend to call anything with nudity etc. porn but we can call it adult content if you want. How many big advertisers do so on sites with adult content? Heck how many will want to have their adds show up with violent content etc.? This sounds like it has the potential to cut off their nose to spite the twitter face, they better hope any addition revenue from covers any loss from advertising.

From the Washington Post article



So they could be creating a new revenue stream that could hurt their main revenue stream and also create more costs if they need to now have a content review team or whatever else. Musk has also said the blue checkmark is only the start as he wants to find more ways of charging users.

Right now about 13% of twitters content is NSFW and this could jump significantly and people are wondering if the increased revue will off-set potential losses.

I only usually use Insta and its gotten pretty spicey the last year lol. lots of OF type stuff. But im pretty liberal so that stuff of type doesn't bother me but i can see conservative people being a bit more squeamish of that type of content, i guess. So you do raise a good point as i am mostly looking at this with more of an open mind then most.

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

I mean I guess it'd be nice not to accidentally find porn tweets when looking at replies (bad idea, I know).

But Twitter is going to become the new Tumblr, isn't it?

 

[beowulf]

I only usually use Insta and its gotten pretty spicey the last year lol. lots of OF type stuff. But im pretty liberal so that stuff of type doesn't bother me but i can see conservative people being a bit more squeamish of that type of content, i guess. So you do raise a good point as i am mostly looking at this with more of an open mind then most.

Indeed it does not bother me, I would not pay for it but hey if someone else does go for it. It's like playing these "free" mobile games like Diablo Immortal which has people who spend nothing at all and others that I think are crazy that have spend in the thousands and even tens of thousands since it came out in June...insane in my mind but it ain't my money.

 

[Dolemite]

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

"I made a meme that symbolizes people who don't exist, please love me and send me your money."

 

[Beau Knows]

I guess he should have bought a Starbucks franchise instead of Twitter.

 

[PK Cronin]

If the blue checkmark is for verification purposes and they start charging, are they still verifying whoever is paying or will they just let anybody become whoever they want? If it's the latter, that seems rather pointless and nobody will pay for something that doesn't secure their own identity on the platform. I also don't really see why many, if any, people would want to pay a fee. There are plenty of high profile people that don't have the check mark already or those people who received it despite not asking for it (or so I've heard).

It's funny to me that people care so much what Twitter does. If it becomes the next Myspace or Tumblr, why do I care? There was a replacement ready and waiting for both of those things and the same thing would happen here.

 

[Ceremony]

le epic XD

 

[beowulf]

Big difference between the two but then again I don't drink coffee either.