Will you pay $8/mo for Twitter checkmark?

@mituhin yeah, fixed DM and ads definitely worth $8 👀

@mituhin @basv It feels like I'd be down to pay $8 for the fixed DMs alone 😁

@subscription_flow That's a good point! And not a lot people mention this.

@arzuozkan Well, expressing an opinion would still be free, but it definitely might get lost somewhere in the bottom if there'll be too many paid checkmarks in the thread 🥲

@arzuozkan But that's the thing, no-one is forcing anyone to pay. People can continue using the platform exactly as they have been using it, for the last decade, and continue saying whatever they want. As far as some people being seen as 'more important' by the algos, that is already was has been happening for as long as Twitter verification has existed. In fact if you have been verified, you have the option of completely filtering out everyone who isn't (which is exactly how many of those people create their own echo chambers).

@michaelflux Yeah of course they can continue to use it for free. But what's the advantage of having a checkmark? Let's think about that. Previously, Twitter gave checkmarks to people with a certain influence ability, and you also had to be trustworthy. (I don't know the details of the algorithm, but not everyone could get it easily) Thanks to their checkmarks, these people could reach larger audiences more easily and even earn money from it (thanks to advertising deals) Now in a scenario where anyone who pays can have a checkmark, your ideas and your ability to influence become less important. The possibility of it turning Twitter into a world where everyone becomes an influencer like Instagram is scary.

@arzuozkan "you also had to be trustworthy" But we're talking about different things here. In its original intent, the verification program was exactly what the name suggests - to verify that a person is who they say they are. And the only thing that was required initially was for you to submit that proof in the form of an ID. After a while, that iteration of the program ended and verification badges started getting handed out more selectively at which point the whole thing turned into "here are the people/organisations we like" which of course inevitably gained an ideologic and political angle. "your ideas and your ability to influence become less important." But isn't that a good thing. To level the playing field, turn verification back into confirming that you're a real person and you're not impersonating anyone. At that point, it becomes a battleground of ideas. The best ideas win out, and they win because they are popular, not because a group of elites pre-approved them. At that point it actually turns into a real democracy from the aristocracy that it is currently.

@michaelflux I agree with what you've said so far. But is it really necessary to pay for this to turn it into a democracy?

@richw I think even if they allowed literally anyone to simply pay and get the checkmark, that alone would cut down on the bot problem 100x. All of the sudden instead of being able to spin up 10,000 bots within hours at effectively no cost at all, and artificially push spam, scams or political crap, the same thing starts costing $80,000. Far higher barrier of entry.

@richw @michaelflux In theory, this sounds like the solution to the bot problem. In practice, however, every account operated by real people would have to have the checkmark in order to achieve credible consistency. As soon as a certain percentage does not want to pay for it, there is no certainty, because the accounts are mixed again. I don't think anyone would want to willfully exclude others just because they don't have a checkmark.

@callom "I don't think anyone would want to willfully exclude others just because they don't have a checkmark." But that's precisely what is currently happening. If you have a blue checkmark, one of the benefits is that you can completely filter out all non verified users from interacting with you. This is precisely how twitter became such an echo chamber. The blue checkmarks get handed primarily to politicians and (mostly) left leaning journalists - and that results in that the only people the journalists interact with are other journalists who repeat their opinions back to them, while the politicians only ever see activists and journalists in their notifications.

@michaelflux I'm more referring to a future situation when everyone could have the checkmark simply via a payment. The sorting you describe would then no longer work as it does now (that would be good). However, it remains to be seen if other methods will then be established to allow such sorting out (that would be bad). Possibly it would actually solve the bot problem in the way you describe. But is that the right approach to it? It would only be a helpless attempt to circumvent the basic problem: the distinction between bot and human. I certainly don't want to pay to identify myself as a human. Back to the original topic: What credibility does a certification that I can buy via a subscription exude? What about those who don't want to participate? Does that make them less trustworthy or credible?

@adithyan "People consider the blue tick as social currency" Exactly why the existing owners of the ticks are so outraged. If all of the sudden the Lambo that you paid 400k for started selling for 15k, you'd be pretty pissed too. All of the sudden every plebeian is driving around the same thing thing and no-one is paying attention to you anymore.

@michaelflux Only owners are outraged. My point is, it is absolutely fine to pay 8$ for the blue tick mark. Because he knows the power of Twitter and that's why he introduced the pricing model.

@adithyan Yeah agree, if you're getting value out of twitter as many of the professionals who are on it are, it's a perfectly reasonable thing to pay.

@michaelflux We'll see how it turns out in practice! That would be a great outcome 😊