Elon Musk | Owner of X and right wing man-child

Simbo said:
Click to expand...


I get her sentiment but that's not what he's saying... He's saying her blue tick is an $8/month subscription plan. She can still post whatever she likes on Twitter whether she has that or not (I imagine). It's all being taken out of context, and there was a time when Twitter didn't even have blue ticks anyway so what does it even matter?
 
Mockney said:
Facebook is thriving, providing you’re over 50 and posting conspiracy memes in a minion template format
Click to expand...

They've actually moved on to Baby Yoda... I've a friend who regularly shares the ones he comes across with me (to laugh at, not propagate).
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
The whole of the Twitter userbase is about 250 millions, at best, maybe 5 millions have a blue tick, and I’m being extremely generous. That’s 40m a month (assuming all of them pay for it, and they won’t). Fat chance the current plebs will sign up for much less stick with that subscription models.

For comparison, for 10 bucks, you get Amazon Prime subscription, something most people use. You get discounts on goods, free deliveries, a free Twitch tv subscription, Prime video access. There’s simply no value for the customers in what the edgelord in chief is offering.
Click to expand...

On a side note. People who arent famous or somebody yet actually pays for this. For one reason or the other.

Like someone said scammer and marketers would jump at it.
 
If he's trolling or not he's basically getting the exact reaction he wanted.
 
Maybe it's just me but I'm seeing a lot more bitcoin shite on Twitter now. Links to random sign up pages and the usual fake videos that used to crop up but not as much as now.
 
Mr Pigeon said:
Maybe it's just me but I'm seeing a lot more bitcoin shite on Twitter now. Links to random sign up pages and the usual fake videos that used to crop up but not as much as now.
Click to expand...
Do you want to go to the moon or not mate?

I was clicking on the replies to one of the twitter overlord's tweets yesterday and there was pretty much always a link to some crypto thingy.
 
Sky1981 said:
On a side note. People who arent famous or somebody yet actually pays for this. For one reason or the other.

Like someone said scammer and marketers would jump at it.
Click to expand...
And when everybody has one it will become worthless, and no one will stick with the subscription.

That’s the heart of the issue here, it’s a get rich quick scheme that might generate a few hundred millions at best in the short term, while devaluing a 44 bn investment to the point its value might collapse. The bulk of the current blue ticks are the ones creating free contents, generating traffic and ad revenues for this site, aka its life blood. Pissing them off does far more dmg to the site long term than any injection of quick cash.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
And when everybody has one it will become worthless, and no one will stick with the subscription.

That’s the heart of the issue here, it’s a get rich quick scheme that might generate a few hundred millions at best in the short term, while devaluing a 44 bn investment to the point its value might collapse. The bulk of the current blue ticks are the ones creating free contents, generating traffic and ad revenues for this site, aka its life blood. Pissing them off does far more dmg to the site long term than any injection of quick cash.
Click to expand...

I would be extremely surprised if it generated even that. Just seems like a bad idea all around, but then again Twitter was already a very poorly run company bleeding money, so the original sin is buying it in the first place.
 
That'sHernandez said:
I get her sentiment but that's not what he's saying... He's saying her blue tick is an $8/month subscription plan. She can still post whatever she likes on Twitter whether she has that or not (I imagine). It's all being taken out of context, and there was a time when Twitter didn't even have blue ticks anyway so what does it even matter?
Click to expand...

It's not being taken out of context at all. Whatever else he's doing, he is definitely connecting this to free speech. Hell, when he announced it he did this whole "lords and peasants" comparison. The fact is that he's taking something that is now purely an identity verification system, which is free, to a paid system of tiered benefits. And unlike the current blue tick, that system will actually affect speech since it will amplify people who buy in.

As for why it should matter, there are many reasons that have already been brought up multiple times in this thread. One of them is that with the blue tick you at least knew someone was who they claimed to be. With the proposed system that goes right out the window. Any scammer, troll or political operative can basically buy legitimacy, and do more damage with it.
 
nimic said:
It's not being taken out of context at all. Whatever else he's doing, he is definitely connecting this to free speech. Hell, when he announced it he did this whole "lords and peasants" comparison. The fact is that he's taking something that is now purely an identity verification system, which is free, to a paid system of tiered benefits. And unlike the current blue tick, that system will actually affect speech since it will amplify people who buy in.

As for why it should matter, there are many reasons that have already been brought up multiple times in this thread. One of them is that with the blue tick you at least knew someone was who they claimed to be. With the proposed system that goes right out the window. Any scammer, troll or political operative can basically buy legitimacy, and do more damage with it.
Click to expand...

I think the damage that can be done is somewhat overstated as the ability to just obtain a blue tick by buying it devalues it and therefore no one will ultimately care.

I'm not defending him, I just don't see it as a big deal. I don't really 'get' Twitter to begin with anyway.
 
That'sHernandez said:
I think the damage that can be done is somewhat overstated as the ability to just obtain a blue tick by buying it devalues it and therefore no one will ultimately care.

I'm not defending him, I just don't see it as a big deal. I don't really 'get' Twitter to begin with anyway.
Click to expand...

One of the bigger issues is if you are contacting a business over Twitter and there are about 500 accounts all with a blue check mark for them, you're in danger of contacting a scam and giving them personal information thinking that it's the legit firm. The alternative is to stop using Twitter for that and email / phone but loads of people do get support via Twitter at the moment (and businesses offer that support).
 
Charles Miller said:
This is a very dangerous man. I was not aware that the little snake was linked to "longtermist philosophers."

I mean, some sweet and nice billionaires created an entire brench of philosophy only to tell us that they think we are irrelevant and our lives, the lives of our families have no actual value. We are dispensable in the name of some supposed marvelous future with mankind conquering the galaxy.

I have an alternative philosophy: lets tax the "longtermist" billionaires in 90% or send them to the gulag.

The always marvelous Sabine Hossenfelder can explain what those people are with more grace and sense of humour:
Click to expand...


I think on a very basic level, thinking long-term is pretty clearly a good way of thinking. It has roots in Native American beliefs of "borrowing the earth from our children" and if more people in the last 40 years were thinking beyond their short selfish lives, we'd have done a lot more to address climate change.

That said, the corrupted way these billionaires and Oxford philosophers have applied the basic premise is just selfish intellectual masturbation. Instead of pretending to know the expected utility of lives a thousand years in the future, they should simply address the problems that we know exist now, like climate change that will obviously benefit the future. People like Musk and Thiel remind me of the people who must have funded the construction of the Georgia Guidestones back in 1980. Let's just sacrifice a few billion "undesirables" to "save the future", feck those people. I also see a lot of logical flaws in this capital Long-Termism.
 
nimic said:
I would be extremely surprised if it generated even that. Just seems like a bad idea all around, but then again Twitter was already a very poorly run company bleeding money, so the original sin is buying it in the first place.
Click to expand...
That’s why I said at best. Assuming 8-10m users (mostly Yanks) are hooked for the thrill and stick with it for a few months, that’s about 150-300m, then the whole thing collapses because all the accounts worth following migrate to a new platform.
 
Balljy said:
One of the bigger issues is if you are contacting a business over Twitter and there are about 500 accounts all with a blue check mark for them, you're in danger of contacting a scam and giving them personal information thinking that it's the legit firm. The alternative is to stop using Twitter for that and email / phone but loads of people do get support via Twitter at the moment (and businesses offer that support).
Click to expand...

This will surely also stop many official government services using Twitter, though in Norway that's been a topic already before this.
 
Balljy said:
One of the bigger issues is if you are contacting a business over Twitter and there are about 500 accounts all with a blue check mark for them, you're in danger of contacting a scam and giving them personal information thinking that it's the legit firm. The alternative is to stop using Twitter for that and email / phone but loads of people do get support via Twitter at the moment (and businesses offer that support).
Click to expand...

I see. I find that strange, if I needed customer support etc. I would go direct to the relevant business's website/customer help, not their social media team.
 
That'sHernandez said:
I see. I find that strange, if I needed customer support etc. I would go direct to the relevant business's website/customer help, not their social media team.
Click to expand...

At the moment, apparently social media pages are more reactive customer help platforms. It's also a better way for people to share an issue that can affect others.
 
JPRouve said:
At the moment, apparently social media pages are more reactive customer help platforms. It's also a better way for people to share an issue that can affect others.
Click to expand...

Probably because of the negative publicity that comes with ignoring people's issues. Still, I'm not about to change my ways.
 
That'sHernandez said:
I see. I find that strange, if I needed customer support etc. I would go direct to the relevant business's website/customer help, not their social media team.
Click to expand...

But often their phone lines / chat are shut, so you're left with social media or an interminable support ticket wait. It's not ideal, but I. have used Twitter for support a few times and got a personal response quickly. I suppose if you can wait for their business hours or whatever then sure, but sometimes you need support fast. That said, a lot of companies seem to be moving over to WhatsApp messaging here in Spain as their primary support channel in place of or in addition to Twitter.
 
That'sHernandez said:
Probably because of the negative publicity that comes with ignoring people's issues. Still, I'm not about to change my ways.
Click to expand...

That's the main reason. And I don't use twitter beyond reading posts, so we are on the same boat but the reality of the matter is that we are the ones not using twitter fully or efficiently.

Now I saw that he planned to purge bots, that's a good idea though it kinds of goes against his 8$ plans because bots artificially increases the relevance of Twitter. There is going to be a lot less posts, retweets and likes.
 
There's bound to be an "official" tick-mark for businesses eventually as Twitter can't afford to lose them and it's unusable as a support forum without being able to identify them. That will make a joke of the blue tick decision, but I doubt Elon cares about that if Twitter gets some cash.
 
I’ll go back to my previous post. The whole reason Twitter started the verified process was that they were being sued for providing a platform for someone to impersonate someone. Unless case law has been established that indemnified Twitter now this will not only be a problem, but even more of one because now the scammers can purchase a blue check, which will be provide Twitter issued legitimacy to the scams. You would think this would open Twitter up to a huge number of lawsuits.
 
That'sHernandez said:
I get her sentiment but that's not what he's saying... He's saying her blue tick is an $8/month subscription plan. She can still post whatever she likes on Twitter whether she has that or not (I imagine). It's all being taken out of context, and there was a time when Twitter didn't even have blue ticks anyway so what does it even matter?
Click to expand...
She'll just have better reach and less invasive advertisements and easier access to help should she be abused for what she says.....so she's right.
 
Im not gonna discuss if the blue tick is a good or bad idea, but i see here the assumption that if you pay, you get a blue tick and i dont think it would be like that.

Someone would not be able to pay to have a blue tick amd now i am Obama, and then a second will pay and will be Obama blue tick too.

The system would be the same of verifying the authenticity of a personality/entity like now but if you want the blue tick, youll need to pay. No pay, no verification. That will result not with a lot of blue ticks just bc you pay you get it, but a lot of less blue ticks because the ones that can in first instance verify themselves, will not pay
 
4bars said:
Im not gonna discuss if the blue tick is a good or bad idea, but i see here the assumption that if you pay, you get a blue tick and i dont think it would be like that.

Someone would not be able to pay to have a blue tick amd now i am Obama, and then a second will pay and will be Obama blue tick too.

The system would be the same of verifying the authenticity of a personality/entity like now but if you want the blue tick, youll need to pay. No pay, no verification. That will result not with a lot of blue ticks just bc you pay you get it, but a lot of less blue ticks because the ones that can in first instance verify themselves, will not pay
Click to expand...

This only makes sense if the new system incorporates the same verification process. If it doesn’t then your hypothesis holds no water. I could go on Twitter right now, change my name (not the @) to Obama, change my picture to his, and edit my bio to be exactly like his. Currently, unless someone actually looks closely at the @, the only discernible difference would be the verification symbol. If I can go buy one for $8 a month then what? Especially if the real Obama decides not to buy it on principle.
 
WI_Red said:
This only makes sense if the new system incorporates the same verification process. If it doesn’t then your hypothesis holds no water. I could go on Twitter right now, change my name (not the @) to Obama, change my picture to his, and edit my bio to be exactly like his. Currently, unless someone actually looks closely at the @, the only discernible difference would be the verification symbol. If I can go buy one for $8 a month then what? Especially if the real Obama decides not to buy it on principle.
Click to expand...

Agree, but if they would not do the same veriication process + paying, would be moronic. It is making pay your source of content already moronic, but the blue tick wouldd still have value in its credibility. You would lose blue ticks. But "pay and get your blue tick no questions ask" would lose the credibility of the blue tick in days and no one, not even impersonators, would pay a second month as it would amount to 0 value in credibility and people would ignoe the tick right away
 
nimic said:
Look on the bright side, this surely heralds the return of Denald.
Click to expand...
He quitted bc he was more presidential and look more realistic than the original. Trump was the parody account of Denald
 
You must log in or register to reply here.