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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Trusty said:
Well exactly, its just daft. The benefits of twitter massively outweigh the costs.
Maybe the twitter board should never have accepted Musk's ridiculous overpriced offer. NYT could have kept their free tick then.
Click to expand...
So you agree, to be seen you have to pay on this free speech platform. No longer can free content exist and expect to get the same results as those that are forced to pay.

I swear the other week you were saying those with good content don't need to pay and their content will do the talking etc.
 
unwashed potato! said:
So you agree, to be seen you have to pay on this free speech platform. No longer can free content exist and expect to get the same results as those that are forced to pay.
Click to expand...

Of course you have to pay. Amazon will be spending 100m a year on the platform

PS. It's not a free speech platform. Go to 4chan or Gab if you want that

unwashed potato! said:
I swear the other week you were saying those with good content don't need to pay and their content will do the talking etc.
Click to expand...

You do realise legacy accounts have had more reach for years, right?

Perhaps listen to the recent twitter spaces with the engineers.
 
Last edited:
Lol the reason the legacy accounts had more reach was fairly simple, it benefited twitter by putting more eyes on the adverts and people actively sought those accounts out in many cases*, things like having verified weather feeds and warning accounts for your local area meant that you were likely to be checking Twitter if just as as a quick and easy way to see what it's like/if there were any warnings for your area, whilst the likes of Stephen King you'd normally be paying tens of thousands a month (if not more) to have them giving out content on your platform so getting them giving it out free was great.

The legacy Twitter engineers who actually did the work and Musk dumped knew the value of those accounts and it wasn't in getting $8 a month or even $1000 a month from them, it was getting the millions of eyeballs they bought to the platform, something that even Musk seems to be realising to a degree now with his deliberate and court case inviting confusion over the blue ticks where now there is no way to tell if you're following the real actor or someone with a stolen credit card as all the blue ticks now basically admit paid for blue isn't something of value as it's now meaningless, and that most of the old blues are unlikely to pay.


*Literally even without specific "amplification", an account with 1 million followers was always going to get pushed a lot harder by a system that took follower count into account. than a 100 follower account
 
Last edited:
In 2023, real Twitter status is when Elon pays your Twitter subscription himself :p

If your account generates tens of millions of interactions a day and you don't upset the manchild your account isn't getting kneecapped.
 
Trusty said:
Well exactly, its just daft. The benefits of twitter massively outweigh the costs.
Maybe the twitter board should never have accepted Musk's ridiculous overpriced offer. NYT could have kept their free tick then.
Click to expand...
This deserved a quote lol instead of just a react.

Edit: please learn when to use "have" and when to use "of"
 
Last edited:
Werewolf said:
Lol the reason the legacy accounts had more reach was fairly simple, it benefited twitter by putting more eyes on the adverts and people actively sought those accounts out in many cases*, things like having verified weather feeds and warning accounts for your local area meant that you were likely to be checking Twitter if just as as a quick and easy way to see what it's like/if there were any warnings for your area, whilst the likes of Stephen King you'd normally be paying tens of thousands a month (if not more) to have them giving out content on your platform so getting them giving it out free was great.

The legacy Twitter engineers who actually did the work and Musk dumped knew the value of those accounts and it wasn't in getting $8 a month or even $1000 a month from them, it was getting the millions of eyeballs they bought to the platform, something that even Musk seems to be realising to a degree now with his deliberate and court case inviting confusion over the blue ticks where now there is no way to tell if you're following the real actor or someone with a stolen credit card as all the blue ticks now basically admit paid for blue isn't something of value as it's now meaningless, and that most of the old blues are unlikely to pay.


*Literally even without specific "amplification", an account with 1 million followers was always going to get pushed a lot harder by a system that took follower count into account. than a 100 follower account
Click to expand...
Another serious problem is that a lot of local government level stuff was stupidly done over twitter along with things like bus companies using it as a way to bypass needing to actually do any work creating a system to warn customers about inadequate service. This change also invariably means that twitter is no longer really viable to use to highlight issues with products/services when a companies customer service is only a level above non-existent requiring public admonishment to achieve a reasonable turnabout (I imagine those companies love that though).

Obviously Twitter wasn't sustainable, but there's a lot of convenience here thrown out of the window that will have much wider deleterious effects on society regardless.
 
Last edited:
Werewolf said:
Lol the reason the legacy accounts had more reach was fairly simple, it benefited twitter by putting more eyes on the adverts and people actively sought those accounts out in many cases*, things like having verified weather feeds and warning accounts for your local area meant that you were likely to be checking Twitter if just as as a quick and easy way to see what it's like/if there were any warnings for your area, whilst the likes of Stephen King you'd normally be paying tens of thousands a month (if not more) to have them giving out content on your platform so getting them giving it out free was great.

The legacy Twitter engineers who actually did the work and Musk dumped knew the value of those accounts and it wasn't in getting $8 a month or even $1000 a month from them, it was getting the millions of eyeballs they bought to the platform, something that even Musk seems to be realising to a degree now with his deliberate and court case inviting confusion over the blue ticks where now there is no way to tell if you're following the real actor or someone with a stolen credit card as all the blue ticks now basically admit paid for blue isn't something of value as it's now meaningless, and that most of the old blues are unlikely to pay.
Click to expand...

If Stephen King had a Youtube account that was popular, getting perhaps hundreds of thousands of views per video. Youtube wouldn't be paying him, Youtube would take a cut.
It's just about finding that balance. Unless i don't know something about Youtube, does Youtube pay certain high profile content creators? I haven't heard of it.
 
Last edited:
Trusty said:
If Stephen King had a youtube account that was popular, getting perhaps hundreds of thousands of views per video. Youtube wouldn't be paying him, Youtube would take a cut.
It's just about finding that balance. Unless i don't know something about Youtube, does Youtube pay certain high profile content creators? I haven't heard of it.
Click to expand...

Certainly used to :)

From that round of funding the ones I'm most familiar with are Sourcefed (which was a brilliant news/comedy channel back in the day before various buy-outs ended with NowThis shuttering it) and the Motor Trend originals which are alive and well to this day. I believe YT also gave funds to channels like Mythical (Rhett McLaughlin and Link Neal's channels) for programming.
 
JRS said:
Certainly used to :)

From that round of funding the ones I'm most familiar with are Sourcefed (which was a brilliant news/comedy channel back in the day before various buy-outs ended with NowThis shuttering it) and the Motor Trend originals which are alive and well to this day. I believe YT also gave funds to channels like Mythical (Rhett McLaughlin and Link Neal's channels) for programming.
Click to expand...

OK, so they used to. Before the platform was massive and didn't have it's current momentum, pretty normal in growth areas. But it doesn't currently do it.
 
Trusty said:
OK, so they used to. Before the platform was massive and didn't have it's current momentum, pretty normal in growth areas. But it doesn't currently do it.
Click to expand...

I mean...YT was pretty massive in 2011 when the Original Channel Initiative was first ran. They were still funding channels in 2017 when they put money into Mythical (Rhett McLaughlin and Link Neal's channels). They didn't shutter the Originals programme until last year.
 
unwashed potato! said:
30 million for ludwig

www.sportskeeda.com

QTCinderella seemingly reveals value of Ludwig’s streaming contract with YouTube Gaming

Blaire "QTCinderella," Ludwig Ahgren's girlfriend and one of his many roommates, has slyly revealed the value of the content creator's new contract with YouTube Gaming.
www.sportskeeda.com www.sportskeeda.com
Click to expand...

An extreme example, where Youtube is trying to stop a competitor gaining ground on it.
How does that back up the idea that Youtube pays it's content creators? 99.9% are not paid. Youtube takes a cut from the majority.
 
Trusty said:
An extreme example, where Youtube is trying to stop a competitor gaining ground on it.
How does that back up the idea that Youtube pays it's content creators? 99.9% are not paid. Youtube takes a cut from the majority.
Click to expand...

Youtube has a revenue share with content creators if that's what your asking about?

The channel has to be a certain size and you get a % cut of the ad revenue that's been the case for years
 
Last edited:
mattx4 said:
Youtube has a revenue share with content creators if that's what your asking about?

The channel has to be a certain size and you get a % cut of the ad revenue that's been the case for years
Click to expand...
Yeah I don't get what point trusty is now trying to deflect attention away from twitter with.

YouTube didn't pay out at all, then it did, then it did generously, then it make it harder to start getting payouts (10k+ subs and more than 2000 watch hours in last year I think).

There has been upset and issues with that, in that plenty creators look to other options to earn their money,

I know my experience of youtube has worsened over the years. Content creators just aren't what they used to be. Too dramatic, fake video pics, titles that are click bait. Give me the days of good old honest fart pranks!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom