1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

You're missing the point. The fee being so cheap is exactly the reason why verification lost all meaning. If everyone can be verified then nobody is, and the "fake" tweets suddenly become indistinguishable from the real ones. It wasn't just an issue of poorly timed monetization (which could've been offered with or without verification), it was the fact that verification itself was no longer a barrier to entry.

That's why we saw companies like Eli Lilly pull all ads from the platform when one fake tweet cost them $15B in market cap overnight. You can crap on reporters all you want and explain it away as a dying industry of spoiled brats with crumbling credibility, a false sense of entitlement, thin-skinned millennials sipping Starbucks or whatever cliche trope you can think of, but what you can't explain away are the multi-national corporations choosing to market their products on other platforms at alarming rates. You can't explain away the ad revenue being a fraction of what it was on the journalists. Maybe, just maybe, the changes made to the platform in the last year or so were extremely ill-advised and the chickens from those poor, myopic decisions are finally coming home to roost.

I don't tweeter (or instagrams, tictoktoe and barely facespace) so I don't know what it took to get a checkmark prior and what it takes now.  So.....

 

I thought back in the day, you had to provide some sort of proof you are who you are and\or some sort of metrics (volume, followers,etc)

 

So today, is it the same criteria plus $$$, or did they remove the criteria and it's just $$$

18 minutes ago, Utebird said:

Samuel might not of had the fastest straight line speed, but his closing speed was elite.

Loved watching him play.

Having said that kyrin Johnson to off ball LB is a bit of a stretch for me.

Dude was an edge rusher in college thought to be too small to be an edge In the pros until he was destroying OL at the senior bowl.

Thought his best shot would be in the Hassan reddick role as a 5th rusher blazing off the edge, I can't imagine he has the instincts for ILB.

Guess we'll find out.

Seems Ellis is the favorite there to back up or sneak in as a starter.

There were also reports that Nolan Smith was taking reps at off ball LB.

If Kyron Johnson has been moved to off ball LB then I'm assuming that the coaches think he sucks at edge?

KJ getting ILB work is like McPhearson getting nickel work. Doesn’t mean he sucks at edge, it means that he needs to be more versatile to make the 53.  It is not different from how they cross trained Dillard at G.  In fact, having edges and DEs that can drop and cover allows the team to disguise defenses more.  Having a player that can play OLB and ILB helps with that as well.  Heck in multiple fronts, that could mean everything from DE to Edge, to OLB to SAM, to MIKE to WIL.  Fact they had KJ with the ILBs in camp isn’t necessarily a bad sign for him.  Quite the opposite, I suspect. 

I think one of the biggest changes on D this year will be disguises.  Desai already does that better than Gannon (not hard to rise above Gannon’s disguises). 

4 minutes ago, paco said:

I thought back in the day, you had to provide some sort of proof you are who you are and\or some sort of metrics (volume, followers,etc)

So today, is it the same criteria plus $$$, or did they remove the criteria and it's just $$$

The latter, or at least that was the case when the change was executed. Otherwise, I'm not sure how you end up with tweets like this.

Seems legit.  They have a checkmark.

11 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

 

30?  This time of year, should be in the high 70s at least.  

32 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

Looking at it from an X (Twitter) point of view, if a business or person is using Twitter to maximize their commercial visibility (applies to politicians too), then why shouldn’t Twitter, a poorly organized advertising platform, not try to monetize verification for such users?  The fact that reporters and others weren’t willing to pay a paltry amount for such verifiable visibility seems absurd to me.   $96 a year.  In return, the reporter gets to hype himself, frequently with links to paywall articles. Basically, $96 a year for unlimited opportunities to "advertise”.   

Problem is Musk had pretty much crippled verificiation, it's not just paying for verifiable status, it's the requirement that it means something, which requires that Twitter aggressively police its verifiables so that readers have confidence of legitimacy.

15 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

You're missing the point. The fee being so cheap is exactly the reason why verification lost all meaning. If everyone can be verified then nobody is, and the "fake" tweets suddenly become indistinguishable from the real ones. It wasn't just an issue of poorly timed monetization (which could've been offered with or without verification), it was the fact that verification itself was no longer a barrier to entry.

That's why we saw companies like Eli Lilly pull all ads from the platform when one fake tweet cost them $15B in market cap overnight. You can crap on reporters all you want and explain it away as a dying industry of spoiled brats with crumbling credibility, a false sense of entitlement, thin-skinned millennials sipping Starbucks or whatever cliche trope you can think of, but what you can't explain away are the multi-national corporations choosing to market their products on other platforms at alarming rates. You can't explain away Twitter's ad revenue being a fraction of what it was on the journalists. Maybe, just maybe, the changes made to the platform in the last year or so were extremely ill-advised and the chickens from those poor, myopic decisions are finally coming home to roost.

You just described all social media with the fakes. (Think Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok etc are any better)?  I am not saying all of Musk’s decisions were good ones.  The bottom line is Twitter was a poorly run, money losing organization long before he bought it.  So he took some early shots.  That’s kind of what he does.  (He keeps trying to land rockets too.)  The verification was crap beforehand.  Heck, they came up with verification to address an issue.  He made a pretty good hire to run Twitter and has stepped back a bit.  The rebranding is also going to be a reshaping.

History is full of "fakes.”  Geez, look at our Revolutionary period, the Federalist v Anti Federalist writings, Jefferson v Adams, the assault on Jacksonians and their responses.  

4 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

You just described all social media with the fakes. (Think Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok etc are any better)?  I am not saying all of Musk’s decisions were good ones.  The bottom line is Twitter was a poorly run, money losing organization long before he bought it.  So he took some early shots.  That’s kind of what he does.  (He keeps trying to land rockets too.)  The verification was crap beforehand.  Heck, they came up with verification to address an issue.  He made a pretty good hire to run Twitter and has stepped back a bit.  The rebranding is also going to be a reshaping.

History is full of "fakes.”  Geez, look at our Revolutionary period, the Federalist v Anti Federalist writings, Jefferson v Adams, the assault on Jacksonians and their responses.  

You're wasting your time.  He's in his fee-fees because Musk's political views don't perfectly align with his.  Best to just move on.  

lol

11 minutes ago, austinfan said:

Problem is Musk had pretty much crippled verificiation, it's not just paying for verifiable status, it's the requirement that it means something, which requires that Twitter aggressively police its verifiables so that readers have confidence of legitimacy.

But 630 says he has no obligation to police the platform.  Did the verification assure authenticity in the past?  Hardly.  

That’s scary. Hopefully he’s able to get better and actually play again. Couldn’t imagine my 18 year old kid going to practice and this happens

 

17 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

You just described all social media with the fakes. (Think Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok etc are any better)?  I am not saying all of Musk’s decisions were good ones.  

That's why twitter was useful and why journalists preferred it. That was their advantage that was needlessly squandered. 

 

Quote

The bottom line is Twitter was a poorly run, money losing organization long before he bought it.  So he took some early shots.  That’s kind of what he does.  (He keeps trying to land rockets too.)  

Oh it's losing far, far more now that it's under such shrewd leadership.  

https://fortune.com/2023/05/30/twitter-value-plunged-elon-musk/

 

Quote

The verification was crap beforehand.  Heck, they came up with verification to address an issue.  He made a pretty good hire to run Twitter and has stepped back a bit.  The rebranding is also going to be a reshaping.

History is full of "fakes.”  Geez, look at our Revolutionary period, the Federalist v Anti Federalist writings, Jefferson v Adams, the assault on Jacksonians and their responses.  

Funny how Eli Lilly never lost $15B in market cap from a fake tweet with the old verification system. I bet that was just a coincidence!

11 minutes ago, mikemack8 said:

You're wasting your time.  He's in his fee-fees because Musk's political views don't perfectly align with his.  Best to just move on.  

That explains why so many companies are pulling their ads, they must all be in their fee-fees too!  

The New York Times reported that Twitter's US advertising revenue from the five weeks from April 1 to the first week of May was down 59% year-over-year, citing an internal presentation.

https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/elon-musk-says-twitters-ad-revenue-is-down-50-and-cash-flow-is-negative/#:~:text=The New York Times reported,year%2C citing an internal presentation.

3 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

That explains why so many companies are pulling their ads, they must all be in their fee-fees too!  

The New York Times reported that Twitter's US advertising revenue from the five weeks from April 1 to the first week of May was down 59% year-over-year, citing an internal presentation.

https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/elon-musk-says-twitters-ad-revenue-is-down-50-and-cash-flow-is-negative/#:~:text=The New York Times reported,year%2C citing an internal presentation.

Yeah - I don't care.  You seem to care immensely, however, because you're in your fee fees.  

6 minutes ago, mikemack8 said:

Yeah - I don't care.  You seem to care immensely, however, because you're in your fee fees.  

I care because I use it to follow updates on the team and I was also a shareholder. Oddly enough, his decision to buy it at such a premium personally benefitted me, but I still use twitter despite the flaws. For now, the alternatives aren't up to par, but that doesn't change the facts about what has happened to the platform, even if that may be inconvenient for you or any other Musk fanboys.

49 minutes ago, paco said:

I don't tweeter (or instagrams, tictoktoe and barely facespace) so I don't know what it took to get a checkmark prior and what it takes now.  So.....

 

I thought back in the day, you had to provide some sort of proof you are who you are and\or some sort of metrics (volume, followers,etc)

 

So today, is it the same criteria plus $$$, or did they remove the criteria and it's just $$$

As I understand it, it is just money except for some celebrities.  

20 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

lol

I hope it's for $11 million guaranteed.  

22 minutes ago, mikemack8 said:

You're wasting your time.  He's in his fee-fees because Musk's political views don't perfectly align with his.  Best to just move on.  

I don’t think Musk’s political views have anything to do with the state of Twitter right now. Not when people are running to Zuck (Threads). The paid verification plus the limiting of tweets you can view per day are the real killers of the platform. I used to just mindlessly scroll Twitter for sports news, especially this time of year. Now I am forced to do that on Threads or just wait for someone to post something in here. 

1 minute ago, WentzFan11 said:

I don’t think Musk’s political views have anything to do with the state of Twitter right now. Not when people are running to Zuck (Threads). The paid verification plus the limiting of tweets you can view per day are the real killers of the platform. I used to just mindlessly scroll Twitter for sports news, especially this time of year. Now I am forced to do that on Threads or just wait for someone to post something in here. 

I'm very sorry to hear that.  It makes me very sad.  

20 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

But 630 says he has no obligation to police the platform.  Did the verification assure authenticity in the past?  Hardly.  

He doesn't have an obligation in the US.  He has obligations in other countries.  Verification did work for large companies, government agencies and celebrities.  These types of verified accounts, in turn, provided ad revenue. They could have handled it much better.  He just seems very short sighted and doesn't think through the nuances of these decisions.  His announcement that there were millions of fake users didn't do anything to impact the price he paid or that the sale went through but it sure did impact ad revenue.  They could have easily crafted a pay for verification system that exempted current verified users, public figures or journalists.  

14 minutes ago, WentzFan11 said:

I don’t think Musk’s political views have anything to do with the state of Twitter right now. Not when people are running to Zuck (Threads). The paid verification plus the limiting of tweets you can view per day are the real killers of the platform. I used to just mindlessly scroll Twitter for sports news, especially this time of year. Now I am forced to do that on Threads or just wait for someone to post something in here. 

I've read that Threads isn't doing well

There is the other one called BlueSky but I think that's invite only beta at the moment

1 hour ago, we_gotta_believe said:

The latter, or at least that was the case when the change was executed. Otherwise, I'm not sure how you end up with tweets like this.

In Musk' sdefense, these fake verified tweets were my favorite thing that happened in Twitter in years. 

42 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

Did the verification assure authenticity in the past?  Hardly.  

It assured authenticity far better than the current system. The fact that you can't see this is alarming, to say the least, given the chaos that transpired when the new system was implemented. 

A whole family of nut jobs