10 minutes ago, TEW said:

As far as there being no issue with the current verification system, the intent is to filter actual humans from not accounts. They want something in between an official government worker/public figure and anonymous accounts.

Again, bots aren't getting verified in droves under the current process. It's perfectly capable of filtering out humans from bots in it's current form. But the $8 fee wouldn't "solve" that problem even if it did exist (which it doesn't.)

2 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Again, bots aren't getting verified in droves under the current process. It's perfectly capable of filtering out humans from bots in it's current form. But the $8 fee wouldn't "solve" that problem even if it did exist (which it doesn't.)

The concern isn’t bots getting verified. It’s differentiating between bots and real people.

16 minutes ago, TEW said:

The concern isn’t bots getting verified. It’s differentiating between bots and real people.

That's exactly what verification already does

3 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

That's exactly what verification already does

No, it doesn’t, because only a tiny fraction of accounts can get the verification.

1 hour ago, we_gotta_believe said:

This makes no sense whatsoever. The infinitesimal number of bot accts that somehow managed to squeek through verification before are now going to be deterred not by the vetting process itself but by an $8 monthly fee? As if they weren't at risk of account suspension before this fee? LOL. This is just embarrassing at this point.

Thank you. I was reading that Tweet trying to understand what I was missing. Elon should have passed on this "investment".

11 minutes ago, TEW said:

No, it doesn’t, because only a tiny fraction of accounts can get the verification.

Which is the entire purpose of verification, like literally right in the name of the process, bots don't get verified so you know verified users are human. 

If you want to reduce bots among non-verified users, you can use any of the methods I already mentioned like captchas, 2FA, activity limits, API restrictions, etc. This plan to "democratize" verification is going to dilute the meaning of it while doing little to reduce actual bot account numbers. Creating additional problems while failing to solve the actual one.

21 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Which is the entire purpose of verification, like literally right in the name of the process, bots don't get verified so you know verified users are human. 

If you want to reduce bots among non-verified users, you can use any of the methods I already mentioned like captchas, 2FA, activity limits, API restrictions, etc. This plan to "democratize" verification is going to dilute the meaning of it while doing little to reduce actual bot account numbers. Creating additional problems while failing to solve the actual one.

Right, and they’re changing the verification process to be more broad based so more people can get verified. That’s literally the concept: verify more people as actual users.

If you think that’s a bad idea, cool, I’m not endorsing it or arguing for it.

6 minutes ago, TEW said:

Right, and they’re changing the verification process to be more broad based so more people can get verified. That’s literally the concept: verify more people as actual users.

If you think that’s a bad idea, cool, I’m not endorsing it or arguing for it.

Right, so if anything it'll be easier for bots/spammers to get verified now, not harder. All they have to do is presumably pony up the small monthly fee. So while a blue checkmark could previously be reasonably trusted as a reliable source of information before (relatively speaking) now it can be any average joe, astroturfer, shill, spammer, etc. 

3 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Right, so if anything it'll be easier for bots/spammers to get verified now, not harder. All they have to do is presumably pony up the small monthly fee. So while a blue checkmark could previously be reasonably trusted as a reliable source of information before (relatively speaking) now it can be any average joe, astroturfer, shill, spammer, etc. 

Part of the problem with bots, as I understand it, is that a majority of them are controlled by scammers. So if you have these individuals or groups with hundreds/thousands of bots, attaching a nominal fee with some kind of banking verification might cut down on them.

As far as reasonably being trusted, again, from my understanding, it will switch to that marking in the picture I provided.

Basically check mark = not a bot

Flag/stamp/whatever you want to call it = official organization/public figure

10 minutes ago, TEW said:

Part of the problem with bots, as I understand it, is that a majority of them are controlled by scammers. So if you have these individuals or groups with hundreds/thousands of bots, attaching a nominal fee with some kind of banking verification might cut down on them.

As far as reasonably being trusted, again, from my understanding, it will switch to that marking in the picture I provided.

Basically check mark = not a bot

Flag/stamp/whatever you want to call it = official organization/public figure

Or it might increase them by giving them legitimacy that was previously unattainable. Basically this becomes an incentive for them to pay the fee and get the checkmark. That's the entire problem with the idea, the scammers capitalize on the confusion. 

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Or it might increase them by giving them legitimacy that was previously unattainable. Basically this becomes an incentive for them to pay the fee and get the checkmark. That's the entire problem with the idea, the scammers capitalize on the confusion. 

Presumably there will be some kind of link with a bank account for verification (or something along those lines), so a scammer could then be banned as a bad actor.

Or maybe it will make the problem worse. You could be right.

In the short term, I think you’re probably right that it will cause confusion that can be exploited. Long term is a wait and see game.

JFC. It has nothing to do with bots. 
 

Twitter produces around $1bn of EBITDA, and that is about to go lower as some advertisers walk away. The cost of the debt is above that. So it can’t even cover the interest cost, let alone invest in anything. Musk needs to increase cash flow immediately, so he’ll sell blue check marks to anyone for recurring revenue. 
 

He just turned $32bn of equity into less than $10bn, and if doesn’t raise cash flow fast, he’ll have to pump in more money to cover the cash burn. 

Live look:

 

 

4 hours ago, vikas83 said:

JFC. It has nothing to do with bots. 
 

Twitter produces around $1bn of EBITDA, and that is about to go lower as some advertisers walk away. The cost of the debt is above that. So it can’t even cover the interest cost, let alone invest in anything. Musk needs to increase cash flow immediately, so he’ll sell blue check marks to anyone for recurring revenue. 
 

He just turned $32bn of equity into less than $10bn, and if doesn’t raise cash flow fast, he’ll have to pump in more money to cover the cash burn. 

For sure.  He is looking for ways to create more cash/revenue.  He will probably go thru a few ideas and then either they work out or Twitter will have a hard time moving forward.

Note: Spotify has had exactly one quarter of profit (may have missed one in there).  At some point, these giants do need to generate a plus on the bottom line.

Love to see it

12 minutes ago, Blazehound said:

Love to see it

Is Donald Trump still dead though?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So his ad campaign for this is a bunch of "own the libs" memes from his personal account?  This will go well.

It must be working. The libs sure are salty about getting so easily pwn3d on the reg.

10 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:

So his ad campaign for this is a bunch of "own the libs" memes from his personal account?  This will go well.

It’s probably a good short term strategy if your only goal is to get a bunch of Trump supporters to pay him for a blue check mark.  Modern politics shows that no one is an easier mark than a right winger who thinks someone’s owning the libs for them. But it’s also an especially terrible long term plan if your goal is to keep Twitter upright. 

2 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

It must be working. The libs sure are salty about getting so easily pwn3d on the reg.

There’s one now 

So when does trump abandon truth social for Twitter?