I believe LeBron James said recently he isn't going to waste his money on a blue checkmark, so it should be interesting to see what stays and what goes.
Most of the major news outlets are not doing so either. The Elon stans are crowing that this will be the long-overdue end of legacy media, but it strikes me that the new 'blue check twitter' might end up becoming even more of a social bubble than what it replaced. There are so many low quality accounts sporting a checkmark now that users who value substance will soon be incentivized to just block anyone they find annoying.
Good find! It'll be funny to see if the incumbents respond with 'don't do me any favors.' Also to see whether Musk's frens sulk aboit him selling out to the elites or so - their gratitude has an extremely short half-life.
Seems dumb of them. Cost is trivial and their competition that isn’t so politically motivated will have a much further reach.
The smart move would be silent on the policy change, pay, and support rival platforms as they can. Instead they will eventually pay and look like they lost.
> Seems dumb of them. Cost is trivial and their competition that isn’t so politically motivated will have a much further reach.
It's wild hubris for twitter to try to invoice/penalize the very users and organizations that make twitter anything but insolvent. There should be money exchanged here, but it should be flowing generously and most importantly in the other direction.
For the NYT to verify their official accounts plus those of their reporters (using the Twitter Blue Affiliations feature) would be $1m annually. This, for a budget line item that has heretofore been $0. In this economy, that's a reach.
LOL they are desperate for reach. Incredibly so; have you not listen to any podcast by them? They are begging people to go to their site. They get a fraction of the organic traffic they used to and nearly everything is driven from other site like Twitter, Google News, Facebook, etc. The internet age has not been kind to classic news orgs.
correctly writing words and punctuation on the page digitally printed by "the legacy news company that's doing the best online of anyone" doesn't matter at all? isn't that like the bare minimum of what their job consists of?
I was responding to a post saying they weren't getting online traffic by saying they are getting online traffic. Nothing about the quality of their content.
An affiliated account to a verified org is $50 per month per seat, so NYT would have to authenticate 1,647 affiliated accounts to reach 1 million dollars per year
Are all of these 1647 reporters (they have that many??) and posting on Twitter? That’s a lot of traffic generators or not.
Surely they could just do the bulk with 100 or so.
You're suggesting the NYT further tier its reporting ranks, along with all the internal difficulty that would entail. For ex: obviously the 100 have to include the most senior reporters, who are also older and therefore the least likely to create the viral content NYT wants affiliated with their account, so immediately they probably need to look at a much larger number. For another example: social media is different for each reader, or from the other side, each reporter has a constituency. In one season, the fashion reporters are driving views, while the following season it's the European war correspondents or the economics reporters (and all of these desks have subdivisions that wax and wane in popularity).
And all that discussion so that they can spend $72k annually with Twitter, a y/o/y increase of $72k from last year. With no guarantees of reach, because the whole paid-only verification thing is an experiment that began an hour ago. Let me just say that this whole pitch is going to be...difficult... at the point in the economic cycle where we find ourselves.
The NYT has revenues of 2.1 billion. I’m sure they have a marketing budget and probably already spending money on Twitter to get traffic. This isn’t something strange.
Facebook did they same thing btw, just more gradual. For years they changed the algorithm slowly to take away reach from Pages only to offer it back as long as you paid.
Parent didn’t say it’s not “political”. It’s reasonable for a wealthy person to feel that a system that discriminates against the poor is not a system they want to participate in.
(Note that I use discriminate in the literal sense, as a simple statement of fact.)
But the example you give is an appeal to a universal moral good. Not partisan politics. So despite saying it’s not not political, your justification is that it’s not political.
Also, how did you get a blue check before being able to buy one?
Some people unfortunately view concern for the poor as political. However my point of mentioning politics is to say that “it’s political” is not any kind of gotcha when it was never denied as being political. Regardless of the actual justification being political or not, the “political” gotcha is nonsense.
That’s bullshit. Virtually everyone agrees poverty is a problem. Sure, the welfare state feeds the cycle of poverty, but it’s not like that was the goal.
Absolutely not bullshit. Some cynical people on the internet believe this, and that's what I thought the person I was replying to was saying. It is an extremely low bar to say "some people believe X", and I don't know why you care to question that. Even with your own reply you say "virtually all people agree" and your use of "virtually" acknowledges that not everyone agrees with you, therefore some people do believe what I say. This is anyway such a silly tangent and was not even my point.
Like it or not but it's the twitter that gets value from celebrities. How many people are on social networks jusy so see what their fav celebrites are doing?
The problem for twitter is it isn't the only game in town when it comes to social media, not by a long shot. They're not even in the top ten. They're a megaphone in a large pile of megaphones, and those other megaphones don't bite the hand that picks them up.
