The ongoing Elon Twitter saga: "insert demographic" melts down

Status
Not open for further replies.
Colonel_Klinck said:
Everyone has grasped that you don't have to pay dowie, only you are trying to make out that is an issue.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be so sure of that, certainly, some didn't seem to have grasped that earlier!

Colonel_Klinck said:
Where is this magic money coming from dowie? Its reported Musk needs to find around $1.3b a year extra revenue to make a profit. To pay these accounts he need to make a profit and a healthy one if he's got 1000s, maybe 10s of 1000s of accounts to pay. So where is he making that money from?
Click to expand...

Advertising and monetisation surely... I mean you've literally just been talking about this $8 per month verification badge... if it is successful and becomes widespread then there is an income stream to tap, if it isn't then he can scrap it and revert to the current system.
 
Trusty said:
I'm not sure, perhaps. There is no reason you couldn't have different types of verifaction. But the guy has only been in charge less than a week, i'm sure he's thought of that very thing, that you could have levels to it. The guys isn't dumb
Click to expand...

It's literally mentioned in the tweets I posted further up that public figures will have that noted on their profile.

Colonel_Klinck said:
Exactly this. I've no problem wih people paying for an account and getting some status symbol to say they are. However if they have the same symbol as the current verified accounts its worse than useless it actually makes the site much worse.
Click to expand...

Why?

Colonel_Klinck said:
Lots of users use that blue tick as a gauge to whether the account is trustworthy. Not every user is going to trawl through an accounts history to see if the account is trustworthy or not. In fact I would say 90% of users aren't going to do that.
Click to expand...

That's ridiculous, it's not exclusive to say vetted journalists who are known to be honest etc.. literally any number of celebs or indeed obscure journalists will have it, how does it signify that someone is trustworthy?

A BBC, Guardian, Daily Fail etc.. journalist will tend to have that mentioned on their professional twitter account profile - do you suddenly trust the Daily Fail journalist because they have a blue tick? Are you insane?

You use it to verify that someone is who they say they are, not that they're trustworthy and that someone is who they say they are is a useful thing to extend beyond the odd mix of people who currently have one.
 
Last edited:
Trusty said:
It needs paid members and your basic users to keep the whole thing going
Click to expand...
Sure but ultimately it's the advertisers that are keeping the lights on; $8p/m blue tickers aren't going to substitute that. So you've got to keep some form of status quo to please everyone otherwise it all folds and, Musk's current boat rocking is making everyone nervous.

Trusty said:
It's a marketing platform essentially...
Click to expand...
That would suggest social media users are mostly brands and suppliers/providers, which isn't the case. It can be a good marketing tool but social media in itself isn't a marketing platform.

Colonel_Klinck said:
If millions of accounts become verified then how do you pick the wheat from the chaff? Check mark isn't a given that the account is useful but its something. If millions have it its worthless.
Click to expand...
Musk has mentioned that they will introduce a "notable tag", so it appears going forward Twitter are separating the current meaning of a blue-tick user, someone important or of note and verified, to two separate "notable" and verified (against ID) ticks or tags or whatever.
Fine, i guess.

My questions would be - how thorough is the vetting and verification process to weed out everyone trying their luck with fake ID's? And lastly, what problem is it really trying to solve? They aren't stopping anonymous accounts, so spam/bot/trolling accounts (and all the **** that comes with those) will still exist.
 
Last edited:
dowie said:
It's literally mentioned in the tweets I posted further up that public figures will have that noted on their profile.



Why?



That's ridiculous, it's not exclusive to say vetted journalists who are known to be honest etc.. literally any number of celebs or indeed obscure journalists will have it, how does it signify that someone is trustworthy?

You use it to verify that someone is who they say they are, not that they're trustworthy and that someone is who they say they are is a useful thing to extend beyond the odd mix of people who currently have one.
Click to expand...
You need it noted as prominent by the name for it to be effective for what it does.

Which is why it's a nice visible tag at the moment, as IIRC that's basically what Twitter did to end a legal case against them, so anything that makes it less obvious could end in court with Twitters legal team having fun explaining to a judge and jury why they broke a system that was generally working.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
Everyone has grasped that you don't have to pay dowie, only you are trying to make out that is an issue. Where is this magic money coming from dowie? Its reported Musk needs to find around $1.3b a year extra revenue to make a profit. To pay these accounts he need to make a profit and a healthy one if he's got 1000s, maybe 10s of 1000s of accounts to pay. So where is he making that money from?
Click to expand...
 
visibleman said:
That would suggest social media users are mostly brands and suppliers/providers, which isn't the case. It can be a good marketing tool but social media in itself isn't a marketing platform.
Click to expand...

Social media company doesn't even mean anything. It's a place where people congregate, but what are they doing with each other?

Twitter users aren't having conversations like Facebook. It's a place for crucial information to be exchanged and to market yourself.

I wouldnt call Facebook a marketing platform, Twitter i would though
 
Last edited:
visibleman said:
My questions would be - how thorough is the vetting and verification process to weed out everyone trying their luck with fake ID's? And lastly, what problem is it really trying to solve? They aren't stopping anonymous accounts, so spam/bot/trolling accounts (and all the **** that comes with those) will still exist.
Click to expand...

They probably will, but you reduce their effectiveness, they're lower in the replies, if some clone account DMs you it becomes more apparent if the account it has cloned usually has a blue checkmark.
Werewolf said:
You need it noted as prominent by the name for it to be effective for what it does.
Click to expand...

Why? The effective thing is surely the verification aspect not the ego/status aspect?
Werewolf said:
Which is why it's a nice visible tag at the moment, as IIRC that's basically what Twitter did to end a legal case against them, so anything that makes it less obvious could end in court with Twitters legal team having fun explaining to a judge and jury why they broke a system that was generally working.
Click to expand...

It will still be a nice visible tag, I don't really follow your point here - the court case you're referring to was about impersonation no? And the verification is what was brought in to address that and what will still exist following this change. I mean if there was a worry about legal risk re: people being impersonated then surely this change is an improvement as there are plenty of people impersonated on twitter every day.
 
Last edited:
Some folks are so invested in Muskian hype that they'll defend anything he does because their stonk success depends on it. /dabs
 
Last edited:
dowie said:
That's ridiculous, it's not exclusive to say vetted journalists who are known to be honest etc.. literally any number of celebs or indeed obscure journalists will have it, how does it signify that someone is trustworthy?

A BBC, Guardian, Daily Fail etc.. journalist will tend to have that mentioned on their professional twitter account profile - do you suddenly trust the Daily Fail journalist because they have a blue tick? Are you insane?

You use it to verify that someone is who they say they are, not that they're trustworthy and that someone is who they say they are is a useful thing to extend beyond the odd mix of people who currently have one.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. You are giving the general public waaaay to much credit. The masses are, excuse my French, ******* idiots.

No it doesn't say they are trustworthy is the sense you are claiming but it does mean or should mean they don't post spam or just completely made up **** if they are a journalists. If journalists are doing that they should lose their check mark or Twitter should add a notice to their post pointing out it may not be accurate. In fact I wish they would do that and help stop the endless disinformation on Twitter but good luck doing that with half the workforce gone.

I could add that I work for the BBC to my bio, that means nothing. Are Twitter going to monitor every account paying £8 to see that what they have in their bio is accurate?
 
Trusty said:
Social media company doesn't even mean anything. It's a place where people congregate, but what are they doing with each other?

Twitter users aren't having conversations like Facebook.
Click to expand...
No idea what accounts you follow but the majority of those I follow do reply and interact with their followers; Musk himself replies to loads of followers, even brought Twitter because of having conversations with his followers.

Trusty said:
It's a place for crucial information to be exchanged.
Click to expand...
Actual worthy information is minute compared to what it mostly is, ****-talking.

sigma said:
Can you imagine if Gates bought Twitter?
Click to expand...
LinkedIn v2.

Colonel_Klinck said:
The masses are, excuse my French, ******* idiots.
Click to expand...
To be fair @dowie, he has you there - most of us are just ******* idiots :cry:
 
Last edited:
Hotwired said:
So how many dozen pages will the thread continue as someone tries to justify any of elongs monetisation as anything other than monetisation by any means possible.

Hey some people see verified accounts as status symbols, lets leverage that for a desperate cash grab...
Click to expand...
Given its a tech subject, on a tech forum, I imagine plenty find it interesting, especially given how public these random changes and thoughts are of the new owner.

YouTube right now are experimenting with new features, but they make no noise about it and don't do it in a random way like Elon does, as though he's in the toilet and posts the latest ideas.

It's not weird that the users on this forum find this both entertaining and fascinating, and something we feel we have an idea about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom