Paying for Twitter was, is, and probably always will be ridiculous
Elon Musk is offering you the chance to be his product for the low, low price of $8 per month
Aux News Twitter
Well, the day is here. The oft-promised and somewhat delayed move to take away Twitter’s “legacy” blue check marks (i.e., those doled out before Elon Musk acquired the app and began offering verification badges starting at $8 per month) is at our feet. Musk previously promised that April 20 would be the last day of legacy checks (presumably because that’s the weed number. Ha ha.) and those who wanted to keep them need to subscribe to Twitter Blue.
The rollout of Twitter Blue has already been chaotic, with users immediately impersonating public figures. While that has mostly been quelled with new policies, it bears repeating: subscribing to Twitter Blue is still a waste of money.
Basically, what you’re paying for with Twitter Blue is the perceived prestige of having a coveted few pixels next to your name, a sort of fast pass that bumps your tweets up higher on the For You page and in replies, and some other customization features. What you gain, though, is paltry compared to what you give, and likely have been giving to Twitter already.
When you use Twitter—or any social media app—you are not the customer, but the product. If you’re like this writer, you’ve already been providing Twitter with free content for over a decade, offering up text and media for nothing more than the sweet, sweet dopamine rush of a notification. This is already kind of dumb (hey, it’s addictive) but to pay to do that is ridiculous. Frankly, Twitter should be paying its top users for generating the content that keeps people coming back.
While most don’t, some users have been able to make a living via other apps like TikTok (directly from the app) or Instagram (through sponsorships). But it’s next to impossible to effectively monetize a Twitter account. You could use it to promote another venture that actually pays you, or, if you’re lucky, can hock sex toys and ring lights under a viral tweet for (anecdotally) about $25. Twitter has started to roll out a tips feature, where you can send your favorite accounts money, but the prospect of earning a significant amount from the feature seems dubious at best. Mostly, you’re sending little jokes into the void, earning nothing yourself but helping one of the world’s richest men keep his increasingly glitchy app afloat. Now, you can also pay to do that.
Even if many of us muted Musk long ago, the “chief twit” has recently been spending his days spreading anti-trans rhetoric on his account and going on Tucker Carlson to share his urge to get people pregnant. This is where your money is going, but tweeters and journalists have been calling out Musk’s increasingly far-right views even before he took control of the app. Knowing this, it’s hard to continue using the app at all in good conscience. But if you do, please, for the love of God, don’t pay for it.
79 Comments
it’s next to impossible to effectively monetize a Twitter accountAside from all the known hellsite problems of Twitter, this has actually been one of the best things about Twitter pre-Elon. Instagram and TikTok and YouTube are infested with “Influencers” and the like, they feel like a flea market, not a place for anything interesting.Post-Elon, Twitter is now not the place for Influencers, but for grifters, which are just as bad. I will say though, that Twitter at least got the grifters to clearly label their accounts with a checkmark.
“Musk previously promised that April 20 would be the last day of legacy checks (presumably because that’s the weed number. Ha ha.)“
Why is that presumable? Do blue checks have something to do with weed?
And you won’t find one verified user who won’t pay it, because they’re addicted to the validation that blue check represents.
Yeah. If Elon ever develops the balls to actually follow through on this, you and he are going to discover how incredibly untrue that is.Elon has successfully ruined any social value of the blue check. Claiming people will still want it is as foolish as watching Donald Trump introduce the MAGA hat and telling yourself it won’t affect sales at your red baseball hat store. The thing is fucking tainted for everyone except the world’s biggest morons.
This is simply wrong. I follow several legacy accounts that lost their checkmarks today. The only “verified” accounts showing up in my feed are a few small media outlets.
Your parents really should have hugged you more.
100% wrong, most legacy users either don’t care or actively welcomes it as it no longer represents what it used to, but rather the complete opposite.
“If you’re like this writer,”
I’m assuredly NOT
Oh, you are too an alcoholic.
I’m a drunk. I don’t go to meetings.
Without Twitter, this site alone loses half of it’s “content”. I’m all for it.
I’d be happy to pay for Twitter if it meant 1) no ads and 2) they don’t collect personal info (the usual “surveillance capitalism” business model). It’s a service, it costs money to run, I don’t mind paying for something I find valuable (I don’t really post on Twitter much; I mainly use it to follow a double handful of friends and interesting folks.) I don’t care about the checkmarks.
The ads being there makes the whole thing subscription thing just insulting. “Yeah, we have a userbase of half a billion people who we bombard with ads constantly but we’ve decided we still don’t have enough money. Pity donation plz.”
Exactly. There are plenty of people who would pay to not be data-mined by these various platforms. My firm has a former client in the digital marketing space and I can assure you all the nightmare stories are 100% true. Information from your searches, purchases, social media posts and physical location are collected and cross-sold across all these platforms to create a full picture. Stores geotag items and if you stop in front of that item for more than 30 seconds you’ll get a promotional ad for it via multiple sources. At this point the cat’s pretty much out of the bag, so maybe shutting off the data collection ability of Twitter et al. is ultimately pointless.
It’s 2023. If you haven’t long been advising clients to utilize adblockers, that’s practically malpractice and it’s on you, friend.
Why would a digital marketing agency suggest people use adblockers? Plus I work in finance. Like I said, they’re a former client.Plus that doesn’t stop everything else you do being tracked and sold.
But they’re never going to let you pay not to be data-mined because they make wayyyyyy more money from that than they would ever make from a subscription fee. There’s simply not enough value to Twitter for people to subscribe in sufficient numbers to make it profitable without the data mining.
Which is why there needs to be legislation (I know, good luck with that) to, ideally, outlaw that kind of data collection or at the very least make it strictly opt-in and optional (cannot be tied to providing the product or service).
Oh, just wait until we try EU-style reforms. “Shit show” doesn’t begin to describe it, what with our penchant for fighting against our own interests at the urging of corporations.
I do wonder how many people would prefer to keep the services free in exchange for their data continuing to be harvested and sold. My guess? 90%+
If the services were up front about it – “We are providing you with this service in exchange for our selling to the highest bidder any personal information we can gather about you” – I’d have less problem with the practice (which I guess ironically I’m participating in by posting here).Buried in TOS doesn’t count. It should be the first thing seen on the “start an account” page in large type and bold. Splash page it so it requires a digital signature to get to any page that collects info.They’d still get massive amounts of people signing up, but it’d get rid of the argument that they didn’t really know until they’d clicked through.
Agreed. It’s tricky because most people aren’t really aware of the surveillance capitalism model, and even if they are they don’t really understand it, and even if they do they can justify to themselves that it “doesn’t really cause any harm” and so it’s okay. This is mainly because the kind of harm is causes is widespread and inchoate and relatively small per capita, but ends up collectively being a huge problem.And yeah, if companies had to tell you up front “We will collect detailed dossiers on you, everything you do, everything you like and buy, and correlate this info with similar data collected by other companies, and sell it to advertisers for big bucks” we’d probably be a lot closer to regulation shutting that shit down.
True, but if they do that I think we’ll be saying goodbye to social media (which wouldn’t be a bad thing). If the companies can’t make money from data-mining, there’s zero financial incentive for them to run these platforms, and I don’t think there’s enough appetite for people to start paying subscription fees in large enough numbers to make it profitable.
Oh well, at least the stockholders made bank!
The problem is that even if Musk promised you that, he could (and likely would) randomly change his mind a day later and just scoff at everyone being upset about it.
As very stable geniuses go, he is one of the least stable.
Neither “stable” nor “genius” applies to Musk.
Well, yeah, I was thinking more along the lines of the pre-Musk era.
Is it really a service? Do you really feel you are gaining something worth paying for from being on Twitter? Genuine question because I couldn’t even find enough value from Twitter to use it for free. It seems like, as said in the article, you are the one providing the service since they don’t get ad revenue (their real money) without you. This subscription fee is just pocket change compared to their real revenue line.
It barely qualifies as a “service.” I’ve found value in “boots on the ground” takes on news items, but only marginal value.As a news aggregator, there are a dozen outlets that do it better. And it supplements those efforts, but it isn’t like Reuters and the AP ceased to exist once Twitter was invented.
Yes, it is really a service. Yes, I am gaining something worth paying for. Not paying very much, mind you (a couple bucks a month is how much I’d be willing to pay, given my usage patterns), but… it costs money to run it, and I use it, so why wouldn’t I be willing to pay for it*?*Most people have absolutely no idea how expensive it is to run large-scale websites, and as a web developer who works for a sizable website, it’s infuriating when people are like “lol this website that costs you millions per year to run should be free, and also not have ads.”
Well if you say you find something of value on Twitter I can’t argue with you. As for it costing money to run it, that’s money they recoup through ads. Again, that’s the whole point of the platform. I would have made the “it costs money to run” argument for the early days of facebook when it was ad free and just a fun new way to connect with your friends, but if it’s already using me to target ads to, that’s a fair trade as I see it. I’m using your “service” and you’re using me. No money needs to change hands between us.
How long before he forgets to pay for his own blue check mark, and how long until he realizes he doesn’t have it afterwards?
Said it before, and I’ll say it again: of all his ideas, compelling people to pay for online validation may be the *least* dumb.
IF IT WERE ACTUAL VALIDATION OF SOME SORT, THAT MIGHT BE CORRECT. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, NOW ALL IT MEANS IS THEY HAVE PAID THE $8.
Persuading a significant amount of imbeciles to pay you $8/mo seems pretty *validating* to me.
Yep. This. This was the entire point I was making.And for the dipshits out there: I could not care less whether Musk’s newest toy fails or succeeds. I’ll leave that for the parliamentarians in attendance.
but it doesn’t pay for validation. it literally just pays for the checkmark
And being “verified” is part of that. The checkmark absolutely is part of that. It renders one “official,” which puts them (in their minds) higher up on the completely arbitrary pecking order.
Will it work? Eh, maybe. It’s just not the dumbest thing he’s tried.SIDEBAR: How is it that people *don’t* see paying for official status as chasing validation?
I think there’s some confusion over which sense of the word you intended.
It renders one “official,” which puts them (in their minds)
higher up on the completely arbitrary pecking order.
Elon, the purpose of verification — which other social media services also do — is to prevent impersonation of entities like FEMA or elections authorities in each state so that people aren’t getting hoaxed by imposters online.No one who got the original checkmarks seriously gave a shit about any kind of “pecking order,” although that certainly seems to be why people are paying for Twitter Blue (which is why he sold something that looked exactly the same as the “this is really this elected official” symbol).
So the people paying for Twitter Blue are the people who care about a pecking order… which is what Ugh. said in their comment.
Blue check marks meant that it was validated that yes, the person behind this account IS who they are claiming to be.Twitter blue does none of that.
“How is it that people *don’t* see paying for official status as chasing validation?”I don’t think they’re paying for validation. I think they got the blue check mark in the beginning (the free one) possibly for validation, but now if anyone’s paying for it it’s legit because they just want to protect their trademark handle or whatever. I think it’s generally seen as very uncool to have a blue checkmark now that it costs money.
See, I appreciate this, as it was an actual attempt to inform, and not banal horseshit from someone* who decided to engage in weird dipshittery today.*I’d like to give a hand to Parliament of Crows, for being my Kinja dipshit of the day. Fourth place overall, as Facebook was really on a tear today.
*Parliamentarian of Crows, sorry – I do like to be accurate, even if autocorrect doesn’t. 🙂
Yeah, dipshits trying the ever-so-clever, would-be bon mot of calling me “Elon” can get fucked for deliberately missing the point entirely.I was not “defending” Elon Musk. If that’s your asinine takeaway, then you’re a dipshit, and I cannot read words *for* you. Go back to #resistance Twitter. More your speed.
‘And being “verified” is part of that.’Other than verifying that you have a chargeable account with $8 in it, no.
Yeah i keep being surprised by how dumb people think it is. Like, for years the entire video game industry has been devolving into people paying for“perceived prestige of having a coveted few pixels next to your name”It may well end up losing Twitter more money than it gains but it’s hardly the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.
One dude hates the concept so much that he decided to christen me “Elon.”FUCK are we a dumb country.
Now, to be fair, there are people from many countries posting on here. We’re a dumb planet.
I could understand if it was, “We’ll go through the process of verifying that you are who you say you are in exchange for a one-time payment of eight dollars,” but not, “Give us eight dollars a month and we’ll agree that you are who you say you are.”
I appreciate the context.I don’t use Twitter, so I wasn’t as up to speed on what the fuck this was. It appeared to be purchasing and maintaining “verified” status. It’s apparently even dumber than that.
I don’t use Twitter either, but I think that anyone who pays the eight bucks a month is automatically considered verified.
Anymore when I see the blue check I assume they’re a Trumper and move on. They’re happily giving their $8 to Musk.
I don’t really use Twitter but sometimes I’ll look at replies to tweets embedded in news articles. The extension Eight Dollars tells you who’s legit and who’s a rube: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/eight-dollars/fjbponfbognnefnmbffcfllkibbbobkiOf course, I have no idea how it’ll work with this new change.
The $8 blue check most definitely tells you who the rubes are.
Based on most of the “incoming changes” on twitter I’d wait until it actually happens. Remember: we’re technically two months into “no free api,” and the api is still free.
Once TweetDeck is done, so am I.
His rocket blew up.
I think it’s a great feature, it’s just missing one piece: the ability to block blue checks. If they made THAT a blue check feature, I’d pay for one
wouldn’t want to belong to any club that would have me as a member
It sort of is, I think? If you go to the “for you” view, it will only be blue check people, so you can go through and just start blocking. Not as easy as a “block all” feature, but maybe more satisfying?
A caveat: Musk himself has paid* for check marks for people who had said they would never buy subscriptions. There’s no way to tell by just looking at their profiles, except that you would probably recognize their names and wonder why they would be paying for it.*So he claims. I wouldn’t be surprised if the money ultimately comes from the business, not his personal accounts.
I logged out a couple of weeks ago, and its been nice. But Twitter eliminating protections for trans folks feels like a last straw. Fuck that shit.
I closed my account a month ago and while there is a vague, lingering sense of “what am I missing?”, it has been incredibly refreshing.
I’m mostly worried about missing out on event announcements, concerts, wrestling shows, etc. That, and there are a few parasocial relationships with public figures I admire/respect that I’ll miss, but that’s probably for the best, all things considered.
You’re not missing literally anything that someone else somewhere will talk about. You’ll get the information without having to go directly to Twitter. Your mind can rest easy.
“but the prospect of earning a significant amount from the feature seems dubious at best.” I would be willing to bet money that this is a roundabout (well, not so much roundabout as almost-transparent) way for Elon to grift people into giving him money straight up. He’s had an army of sycophants for a long time but you can only suck money out of them with a checkmark (or god forbid an actual PRODUCT) once. This will let his horde just pay him every time he posts a bad stolen meme without having to actually give them anything in return. He’s essentially gonna turn himself into one of those politicians that text you saying they need donations, only instead of promising [insert a campaign issue here], he’s gonna swear that if you just send him a FEW more tips on his new sick meme, he’ll get us all to Mars, no really, for real this time…
Probably should have mentioned the super follow feature, as it is a direct way of monetizing an audience who is willing to pay extra for exclusive content from an account. Giving twitter money directly for the checkmark though is very dumb, and immediately marks you as a fucking loser.
A feature that apparently no one is using. The audience for both providing and consuming such content is over on Substack.
tweeters and journalists have been calling out Musk’s increasingly far-right views even before he took control of the app. Knowing this, it’s hard to continue using the app at all in good conscience.But let me guess: G/O Media writers are going to continue using it. And hey, I get it. You need it to do your job. It just amuses me that some of the worst-received articles (by the commenters anyway) are the ones that draw a conclusion based on the assumption that everyone is Extremely Online, and more often than not, Extremely On Twitter. Or they’re articles about how a group of Twitter users are mad about something, which drives attention, clicks, and mindshare (and by extension, ad revenue) to Twitter that the site might not otherwise have had. Before Musk owned it, it was just kind of annoying, but it’s hard to not see it now as propping up a dying platform owned by an increasingly far-right megalomaniac.
Twitter has legit fucked so many folks’ understanding of, like…name it.Ran into a dude last week, who stated that if NPR was going to leave Twitter, they should be forced to give back their Federal funding.Revocation of Federal funding. For leaving Twitter. Which is not, in fact, a mandatory Federal reporting service.Just pure rot. Brain, mainly.
I know I’m screaming into the void at this point, but my position has long been that social media is not the real world. A few thousand people having a Twitter fit represent .001% of the U.S. population, yet people and companies live in terror. The lack of perspective is astonishing and I just don’t get it.
It is not.
Every single news site one the internet depends on Twitter to get their updates. Until there is a suitable replacement, journalists (using the term very loosely here) are never, ever going to let the platform go.
I mean…the AP and Reuters still exist. Twitter just made them fucking lazy, aided by our apparent desire for clickbait.
Reuters would need more hot takes on Olivia Wilde for the AV Club to notice.
nothing more than the sweet, sweet dopamine rush of a notification. This is already kind of dumb (hey, it’s addictive) but to pay to do that is ridiculous. Hey now, that’s basically the business model of big tobacco, the cartels, and most breakfast cereal makers.Oh, speaking of Musk’s far-right views, a few days ago I came across some people tweeting a widget that (ostensibly) scans your tweets, then scans all of Twitter to see whose tweets are the closest match to yours. I tweet so infrequently that no one matched me, but for fun I put in @elonmusk, and his “Twitter twin” or whatever is Kevin fucking Sorbo.So he’s far right and dumb as stump, too.
Now the Twitter Blue tag is a checkmark to indicate that you, the user, are a mark (and they checked, because your payment cleared.)