This seems reasonable move. Let those who get most out of Twitter pay for it. Additionally maybe corporate users should be charged lot more. Depending on scale and reach.
Yeah, it might be slightly more valuable to IBM or FedEx than $20. But for me $20 is just slightly too much, I like twitter as an open first community, despite all its well established faults, I feel it’s less bad than all the others.
I'm not into whole 'Elon takes over Twitter' drama, and most likely I'm not their target audience. But for whatever it may matter, I stay away from any platform that tries to verify me, even if most of them manage to successfully track me... I guess this service may bring some value to 'famous people'..
Good. The bluecheck right now is a combination of moral approval, connections and importance. Verifying identity is a service, it costs money, it's reasonable to expect people to pay for it, and to provide it to anyone willing to pay for it.
Those verified active users are the lifeblood of the platform, but there can't be that many of them to justify rolling unnecessary obstacles in front of them.
It’s a status symbol now. If it becomes a paid feature of privately owned Twitter then, whether they like it or not, it’s going to become a badge that says the owner supports an incredibly divisive specific person.
> Those verified active users are the lifeblood of the platform, but there can't be that many of them to justify rolling unnecessary obstacles in front of them.
They bring money to Twitter how exactly? That whole "verified" scheme was always a joke, given who gets to be verified or unverified. Either it's about real identities or it's a worthless ideology approval badge.
They draw an audience to the platform and they tweet things that journalists want to write about which is free advertising for Twitter that draws more of an audience.
"Twitter is strongly considering making its users pay to remain verified on the service, Platformer has learned. If the project makes forward, users would have to subscribe to Twitter Blue at $4.99 a month or lose their badges.
Executives at the newly Elon Musk-owned company have spent the weekend discussing the move and making plans related to the project, according to two people familiar with the matter."
It wasn't exactly free, but a crony system from what I can tell.
Honestly feels way too cheap at 5$ for what it is and the unjustified weight it carries.
That option should be free though. The 90, 9, 1 rule applies strongly to twitter. Elon and team should try and milk the 1% for a lot of cash and make the experience pleasant for the 90% who just read it all.
that's been working. I think we're behind the curve here; it should be easy to very strongly verify my identiry to any online business I choose to do that with; without government taking the lead, every damn company is going to be expensively reinventing that wheel.
Most companies shouldn't need this information. I don't give my id to most businesses I visit in person. The ability for online services to "verify" me does not need to be easy and it doesn't need to be cheap otherwise it will just be abused.
But bots can't walk into most businesses in person. My point is that I don't want to hear from an account that isn't at least verified to be set up by a verified specific human being.
And you should be able to filter to only accounts that are verified and pay $5/month. I think this is an issue with twitter and their product. "verification" is one possible solution. But, other product changes would probably work better. E.g., I rarely have such negative interactions on hacker news and they don't even require a CC or a phone.
I understand, but unless via a crony system, (which has obvious problems, re free speech) it's hard to do that kind of IDing without expense. However, I would like to see a not-someboy-but-a-verified-specific-human-not-bot account designation, too.
So to flesh this out, I'd like to see three or four kinds of members on Twitter. All would be authenticated in one sense: their real names would be known to the site and verified. But...
1) Some users would pay extra to be anonymous or pseudonymous to users of the site (but not to corporate Twitter)
2) Most users would be under the real verified name but no blue check to say this is their real name. No charge (unless just for the initial verification, maybe.)
3) Blue check users pay to show everyone they are not just a person, or just a person of the same name shown, but a person (or company) of note with that name. (And the most well-known person with that name.)
4)? "Ordinary" or less well-known people should be able to pay a little for, say, a blue circle (but no check) that shows they are not pseudonymous accounts and any geographical location, job description given has been verified.
I've bought many social media accounts before, this is way more efficient and less disaster prone than paying for likes/followers, as you won't get bots. You'll get a professionally curated and grown account with the level of engagement to your choosing, with the audience geared towards the brand/theme of the account's content.
What people don't realize is that each individual account is like purchasing a business. There are way too many similarities to think of it any differently.
When you buy an account, you get all the DMs which often include a whole network of traders, promoters, service providers, negotiations, trade lines. Typically you also get the email address and password used to create the account, which has even more of this.
You are mostly getting ROI pretty quickly by doing a few promos really quickly. Its actually based on a multiple of getting ROI.
Purchasing an account is a fairly low trust environment, fraught with scams. Most social media Terms of Service actually exacerbate this, by mostly banning the concept of buying/selling an account. Since this happens, the platform should actually be facilitating these transactions and there is a lot of value to extract. Escrow services charge 30% right now, but a network of trusted traders is better and more valuable.
With that said, $4.99/mo for the tip of the iceberg of the value of these accounts is extremely underpriced. Tolerable overhead costs are in the thousands if we are being honest. This should be its own separate tier than just "Twitter Blue", as it will price out too many people to operate at scale, but this is definitely a model that is neglected by social media platforms right now.
a 4.99 monthly expense for accounts have who'm are likely to be world leaders, public figures, large organisations and the odd charity/public good insitute is not a steap price.
Statistically, of course it's a large increase. However from a business perspective I do not think so. A quick search indicates there are 294,000 accounts, and at 4.99 a month that would yield Twitter $1,467,060 a month, which is hardly anything. Especially as I imagine ~10-15% of those accounts will decide to forgo the badge, either in protest or because they just don't care.
At current numbers, yes, but a lot more people might want to be verified if Musk decides that the only qualifications are that you are who you say you are, and that you're willing to prove it to twitter.
Nah, they are mostly very minor public figures and that is stretching definition of public figure for most. Majority is nowhere near to anyone big or important.
Hopefully they stick to this plan, but the price is much too low. In addition, they should require payment from regular users too. I really do hope they try to squeeze as much money out of their users as possible, and then some.
It's the verified users that make Twitter relevant. Pushing them away won't go well.
There's a large number of people using Twitter professionally and all Elon comes up with is... pay for the check mark? The Twitter saga might be the thing that brings down his image as an entrepreneurial genius.
