- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
this is basically the equivalent of “we’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas”
More like they’d rather have a platform of paying neo-nazi users than paying advertisers.
Look at truth social for how that worked.
Let’s see how that works out for them, already seems like it’s going swimmingly
More like “we’ve tried getting Russian money and it actually worked pretty well.”
I can’t see why you’d pay for a service that still had ads? It’s why I’ve never gotten cable - if I’m paying, I don’t want ads.
The whole “pay to avoid ads” model is so weird though.
Why? Ads are one method of payment, cash is another. The weird model is paying more to remove ads. There should just be two tiers, free with ads, or paid without ads. If t former doesn’t make sense, only offer the latter.
Ads are one method of payment, cash is another.
This might be true if the cash payment was equal to the ad revenue per person, but it isn’t.
Ad-revenue per person would be a few cents per month, but even if it were $1 per user month, paying $4 or whatever to remove the ads means the ads are punitive. Pay the subscription or we will drive you nuts with shitty ads.
And in that case you probably have an argument against using that service, or perhaps monopolistic practices if they are a natural monopoly. For example, if your energy company charged you $1k to remove ads on your meter, I would completely agree that it’s an abuse of their position because it’s unrealistic for you to switch to another provider and there’s no way the ads are saving you that much off your bill.
My point is that ads should be allowed as a substitute for payment for services. Ad-free tiers should be an approximation of the cost to provide the service to you, with a reasonable amount of profit on top, as should the approximation of ad-revenue. In other words, those two numbers should be largely in-line with each other.
The main issue I have with ad-supported services is that they’re frequently a complete violation of privacy. In order to increase the value per impression for ads, they need information about you to serve relevant ads, which means they’re likely selling your data to advertisers (or a third party that handles ad personalization). IMO, there should be strict laws around that form of data sharing since that can present a very real security risk to the customer. That’s why I’m interested in projects like Brave (just an example, I dislike Brave) that seek to provide ads without the personal data leakage (i.e. Brave could do the personalization inside the browser, and advertisers would only know how many impressions they got and the level of personalized matching for those impressions).
I’m not against the idea of ad-supported tiers, but there should be strict rules surrounding them.
That’s fine, your position is reasonable and I can accept that.
Over the years I’ve become more and more opposed to advertising of any form. It makes me very grumpy - probably unreasonably so.
I understand that services need to make money but $10 / month for something like twitter just seems absurd to me.
Oh absolutely. I think Twitter should be free for personal use and funded by commercial entities that use it since their posts are essentially ads themselves.
Basically, if you want to be authenticed (the blue check mark or similar), you should pay some recurring bill, like a payment per tweet or a monthly bulk cost. And in return, Twitter will periodically verify that you are you and notify you if your account is likely compromised. There can be different tiers for different types of users, from journalists to politicians to influencers.
I don’t use Twitter currently, and I certainly won’t start when they introduce subscriptions.
I want to see a service with ads that has a subscription and at the end of every month they distribute all ad revenue to the subscribers.
I just don’t want a subscription with ads at all.
I mean, not so much to me. You need to pay for something somehow, either via ads or money.
It’s the pinnacle of modern media. Why w- nevermind.
Without the users, this platform has no value. No one is interested in it already, except for nazis, bigots, and crypto bros. Paying for this garbage makes no sense
Don’t forget sports fanatics and meme shitposters
And Japanese artists.
They will be completely fine, if it were to disappear tomorrow. Pixiv/fanbox has strong creator support and tools
Artists of all types. Egirls. Game creators. News organizations.
Those groups of people might be of the misunderstanding that people are still listening to them just because they are paying money.
Don’t forget how much Nazis enjoy supporting Nazis to own the non-Nazis.
So it’ll end up being a platform of trolls and bigots just screaming into the void and paying for the privilege. What a fabulous idea.
Honestly, I don’t know what Jack Dorsey is waiting for. The instant Bluesky leaves its closed beta, basically everyone on Twitter is gonna jump ship, and Twitter’s transformation into Truth Social 2.0 will be complete.
The iron has been hot for a long while. What’s he waiting for?
Infrastructure I think. The last few waves of invites have brought instability to the system if i recall
This will actually be hilarious because it will out all the state propaganda who will be the only ones willing to pay
Sock puppeting works because it’s cheap, requiring payment would be a big spanner in the works.
How do they account for a service like privacy.com which allows you to generate multiple dummy card numbers for a single card?
If the cost of subscription is, instead, the barrier to entry then all we’ll end up seeing is parties who have the resources for wide spanning scams or propaganda or whatever it is - and if they’re paying then they expect to profit or score gains in some way that justify their costs, which likely means they’re effective at what they do
The cost will skyrocket as the ruble collapses
deleted by creator
All they can do is take features away and charge users to put them back. I can’t wait until it dies.
I’m going to sign up and issue a charge back to make sure I get banned as a customer
I prefer the web version with adblocker for zero ads experience that costs $0
I prefer not using X at all, which is free and improves my mental health. That strategy worked well before Musk bought it too. I recommend trying it.
If it’s about my mental health it’s lemmy I need to quit. My twitter feed is entirely a positive one and I spend less than hour a week there anyways.
deleted by creator
Twitter Blue was a failure, and they want to double down on it? Hopefully there’s a mark on their profile so they get bullied again.
As tired as I am of hearing about Twitter and Musk, stories of his costly failures always entertain!
They will just keep bleeding their loyal base of users dry until there is nothing left for them to give.
We, who are about to cry laughing, salute you!
die cry-laughing 🤣
FTFY
This IS the same guy that kept raising the price of FSD despite not delivering on promises.
Delete your xitter account if you haven’t already.
Only reason I have twitter is there isn’t a bot feed to mastodon for the POTUS account. All my other feeds (nfl, ESPN, etc…) are being copied or are publishing directly there.
Note, I don’t reply, like, comment or do anything to the feed, I just want to get the news “breaking” or otherwise
