this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023
150 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37720 readers
50 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

archive.org

X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, will begin charging new users $1 a year to access key features including the ability to tweet, reply, quote, repost, like, bookmark, and create lists, according to a source familiar with the matter. This change will go live today for new users in New Zealand and the Philippines.

Roughly 20 minutes after this story published, X’s Support account confirmed the details, writing that “this new test was developed to bolster our already successful efforts to reduce spam, manipulation of our platform and bot activity, while balancing platform accessibility with the small fee amount. It is not a profit driver.”

Starting today, we're testing a new program (Not A Bot) in New Zealand and the Philippines. New, unverified accounts will be required to sign up for a $1 annual subscription to be able to post & interact with other posts. Within this test, existing users are not affected.

This new test was developed to bolster our already successful efforts to reduce spam, manipulation of our platform and bot activity, while balancing platform accessibility with the small fee amount. It is not a profit driver.

And so far, subscription options have proven to be the main solution that works at scale. — Support (@Support) October 17, 2023

The company published the “Not-a-Bot Terms and Conditions” today outlining its plan for a paid subscription service that gives users certain abilities on their platform, like posting content and interacting with other users. This program is different from X Premium, which offers more features like “Undo” and “Edit” for posts for $8 a month. Given the company’s tumultuous reputation under Musk, some users have voiced their hesitancy to turn over their credit card info.

X owner Elon Musk has long floated the idea of charging users $1 for the platform. During a livestreamed conversation with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu last month, Musk said “It’s the only way I can think of to combat vast armies of bots.”

Shortly after the announcement, Musk tweeted that you can “read for free, but $1/year to write.”

“It’s the only way to fight bots without blocking real users,” Musk wrote. “This won’t stop bots completely, but it will be 1000X harder to manipulate the platform.”

X CEO Linda Yaccarino was asked last month onstage at Vox’s Code Conference about how going to a full subscription model on X will affect revenue, something that is now going live to users today. Yaccarino answered at the time, “Did he say that or did he say he’s thinking about it?”

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] lvxferre@lemmy.ml 63 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

The very fact that you're requesting payment info already makes plenty people think twice. Specially in the light of the brand changing from Twitter to X - if you're clueless about the change something "smells off".

On the other hand for a lot of bot owners this is absolutely no issue. You shouldn't be popping up a whole bot army, but instead only a handful of well coordinated bots to astroturf the shit out of the platform.

In other words the idea might have the opposite effect - keeping potential new human users out, but allowing the bots in.

[–] tristan@aussie.zone 49 points 1 year ago

This is exactly right... A lot of bots already pay for blue since it promotes them and prevents them from getting blocked/muted so easily

$1/bot/yr will be nothing to bot farms

[–] arquebus_x@kbin.social 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

In other words the idea might have the opposite effect - keeping potential new human users out, but allowing the bots in

The galaxy brain shit here is that I suspect the bot problem actually doesn't concern Musk in the way he claims. If he can make it seem like there are fewer bots (because of these policies) while at the same time not actually getting rid of them, the engagement level stays up and the advertisers are happy in their ignorance. Bots are better users: they're not fickle, they don't go to sleep, they can be reliably expected to be posting more regularly than normal users. The trick for Musk is convincing everyone they're gone.

[–] lvxferre@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The further I think about this, the more that it makes sense. The $1/year would even help to sort in the "right" type of bot (that wouldn't be affected, unlike disruptive mass account creation), while still allowing them to claim that they're getting rid of bots.

[–] howrar@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago

Bots don't click on ads and buy stuff though. I'm pretty sure anyone buying ads are going to be measuring this.

[–] ultratiem@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago

Yeah his plan is to turn it into WeChat/QQ. Starting its payments because he’s gonna try to do PayPal again, this time his way. Nothing insidious or revolutionary.

[–] ptman@sopuli.xyz 40 points 1 year ago (7 children)

I can only approve of people paying for services they use. It isn't free to run. But there are several things to consider:

  • $1/year is very low, transaction fees for accepting that amount of money are high
  • It's a low price for successful bots
  • Doesn't remove ads (take money from subscribers or advertisers, not both, also print media)
  • Doesn't give you better control over your experience. The paying customer should be the one being listened to
  • This is Elon Musk's twitter we're talking about, how long until he changes his mind again?

Another surge on mastodon? Countries, cities, public organisations should put up their own mastodon like EU, BBC and Germany have.

[–] Case@lemmynsfw.com 13 points 1 year ago

I was more thinking it's to test the waters.

A buck is affordable to most everyone who has the means to access Twitter.

Of course next year it'll be Twitter++ subscriptions for 20 bucks a month, as they phase out the 1 dollar tier.

I never cared for Twitter, and watching Musk's spin on it has been hilarious as someone with a long history in corporate IT.

Pre-edit: At the moment I'm refusing to refer to it by a ~~tween edgelords name~~~ Musk's name for it.

[–] 7provincien@startrek.website 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Dutch government put up an instance as well; e.g. this is the handle of the agency for road and waterworks. @rijkswaterstaat@social.overheid.nl

[–] maynarkh@feddit.nl 4 points 1 year ago

There's a separate one for the city of Amsterdam as well

[–] admiralteal@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Doesn’t remove ads (take money from subscribers or advertisers, not both, also print media)

Tell that to all the advertorial content from e.g., the fossil fuel industry on The New York Times. Print news has been accepting money from advertisers while charging users since before internet ads were a thing. They just hide the ads in more insidious, corrupt ways.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Titan 35 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The CEO learning this at the same time as we are

[–] ram@bookwormstory.social 21 points 1 year ago

That's legit probably what's happening though.

[–] Stillhart@lemm.ee 33 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean I get what they're trying to do, but I feel like the people successfully making money with spam/bots will not really have a problem with that fee.

[–] NattyNatty2x4 28 points 1 year ago (3 children)

That's because reducing the bot problem isn't actually what they're trying to do. They're trying to patch the gaping hole in revenue that advertisers left in their exodus

[–] arquebus_x@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Bots aren't a "problem" for Twitter unless the advertisers think there are more of them than there are real users. But if you can convince advertisers that you're reducing bots, while also not actually reducing bots, you've got a winning formula. Bots are reliable posters, they contribute a lot more than a regular user, and they make high-engagement tweets/posts/tweex that end up getting a lot of views, aka advertising opportunities.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] saigot@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

At it's peak twitter had 500million users. in 2022 twitter made 4.5bil in profit. Typically a 1% signup rate for a new paid service is considered really good and there is no way that there are still 500million users. Seems like it's just a drop in the bucket.

Personally I think it's yet another attempt to intentionally dismantle the company.

[–] NattyNatty2x4 3 points 1 year ago

Twitter made 4.5 billion in revenue, not profit. They likely weren't making profit yet, but either way we're still not privy to the company's exact profit before or after Musk's takeover, and therefore aren't privy to how much this charge would affect their margins.

Personally I think it's yet another attempt to intentionally dismantle the company.

If Musk wanted to dismantle Twitter he'd just shut it down. He owns the thing, he doesn't need a secret plan to fuck it up he can just do it. He's just flailing around trying to patch the holes in his $44 billion fuck up and leaning into his alt-right image of it

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PotjiePig 27 points 1 year ago (3 children)

So an army of a thousand twitter bots will cost a thousand dollars a year? That seems shruggable.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Butterbee 23 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Ain't no way I am giving Elon Musk $1.

[–] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] ulkesh 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don’t. And haven’t since the moron took over. I can’t wait until everything he touches fails. Even if that means SpaceX.

[–] Bangs42@reddthat.com 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I prefer to hope that he loses SpaceX. They are legitimately doing cool new things that we honestly need. But they can do that without Elon's involvement and he doesn't need to profit from it.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Great! More will move to Mastodon.

[–] deczzz@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Probably not though. Common people don't understand Internet. Nor does politicians or journalists. What else is on Twitter? Advertisements?

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 3 points 1 year ago

I think it's time we made a bunch of twitter alternatives and don't mention Mastodon. I think we are approaching this the wrong way. Instead push instances as if they are separate alternatives themselves while having them federated.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] bl_r 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

From any other company who runs a social media company with a spam problem, I’d say this is an interesting solution. You can identify some bots and sock-puppet accounts by PCI. For Musk’s twitter, I’m not exactly trusting it, it feels like enshittification is in full swing.

I wonder how this will affect diversity of opinion on twitter, since I feel those already critical of twitter won’t be as likely to spend a dollar

And I’m a little skeptical that this will dissuade botting, since 1$ is nothing

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

And I’m a little skeptical that this will dissuade botting, since 1$ is nothing

It depends how many bot-hours you need to earn a dollar back. That's prohibitive for a lot of dragnet-type internet activities, which run on tiny tiny fractions of a cent.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] StarServal@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There are still new users signing up for shitter?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Send_me_nude_girls@feddit.de 12 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Soon Elon will pay users to keep using Twitter. Haha

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] ExLisper@linux.community 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Ok, but how will this help them get more users? Because I can easily see how it will make them less users.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 1 year ago

reminder this is $1 philippines which is like $56 usd

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Honestly don’t think it’s an insane idea. Not sure how effective $1 would be against bots, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the idea makes sense: basic and low friction to deter a large amount of spam. Maybe it’s $5 a year or whatever.

Of course there’s an equity issue for those who can’t afford this, especially if it goes mainstream and every online thing requires similar and we get Netflix -> Cable all over again.

But here on the Fedi I can see the idea working if applied to some instances that have set up the governance (eg co-op) and services (committed moderators) for it to make sense.

I think it would be cool if being an admin and moderator could genuinely be a side hustle or more without sucking away at someone’s passion.

[–] itmightbethew 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

i agree completely, and i've said it before, a small fee goes a long way to stopping spam and the bad kind of shitposting. It's barrier that a lot of actors, good and bad, can climb, but they'll be at least someone who can't or won't.

thing is, twitter has already eroded so much trust and relevance that i think for a lot of folks this might be the last straw. we'll see - much like the reddit rebellion it's hard to tell how many folks will actually quit from the noise alone.

For the fediverse i'm not certain at all. on the one hand many of us want the fediverse to grow and become more diverse. Fees are a barrier to entry. but i also agree, as you say, that mods and admins deserve something for their trouble - especially since their job is a lot harder on lemmy.

i hate to say, but maybe discord has it right? monetize cosmetics and stuff? i really don't know. Disclosure i am nitro subscriber, mostly for the emoji.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dan@upvote.au 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Interestingly WhatsApp also used to charge $1/year in some countries, before the Meta acquisition.

[–] megopie 6 points 1 year ago
[–] shiveyarbles 5 points 1 year ago

Musk the genius: we're losing boatloads of money, quick I need solutions!

Minion: ummm can we charge a fee?

[–] Granite@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

How long until it rolls out to current users?

[–] harmonea@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Corrected archive link - OP's is missing a character so it's not working

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

🤖 I'm a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:

Click here to see the summaryX, the platform formerly known as Twitter, will begin charging new users $1 a year to access key features including the ability to tweet, reply, quote, repost, like, bookmark, and create list, according to a source familiar with the matter

X owner Elon Musk has long floated the idea of charging users $1 for the platform.

During a recent livestreamed conversation with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu last month, Musk said “It’s the only way I can think of to combat vast armies of bots.”

The company also published “Not-a-Bot Terms and Conditions” today outlining its plan for a paid subscription service that gives users certain abilities on their platform, like posting content and interacting with other users.

This story is developing.

Please check back later for updates.


Saved 0% of original text.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›