this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2023
724 points (99.9% liked)

Technology

58115 readers
3902 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bappity@lemmy.world 291 points 1 year ago (2 children)

twitter blue subscribers can now hide the entire reason they spent money on it in the first place

[–] Hovenko@kbin.social 115 points 1 year ago (4 children)
[–] TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world 67 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well that sounds terrible. At least with the blue logo you can just hide or block their posts to get to the organic engagement.

[–] ZEEEPh@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago (1 children)

yeah, seems like now it will be very difficult to weed them out... just another reason to go away from twitter

[–] HKayn@dormi.zone 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Knowing how well Twitter is being maintained, there's likely going to be something left in the code to give Blue people away

[–] klyde@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

And if so, the blocker I have on PC will find them and block them still.

[–] GnuLinuxDude@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago

well that explains why whenever i look at a tweet i have to scroll past all the top comments which are inevitably the stupidest ones

[–] jtk@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 1 year ago

Oh I see, the blue checks have become a direct competition to bot farms. I think I'd rather give the money to a bunch of soulless machines than a soulless human.

[–] bitsplease@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago

Also it let's Elon pretend that more people are subbed than really are. We know he likes to inflate the perception of whose willing to pay for it after he gave out a bunch of free checks to celebrities who refused to sign up

[–] ScrotesforGoats@lemmy.world 42 points 1 year ago (2 children)

They're probably tired of the harassment they're getting for paying for it. A lot of the blue check tweets I've seen have a comment section mocking and berating them. I think it's a shame they get to hide it. If they paid for it they should deal with the harassment that goes with it.

[–] coach@lemmynsfw.com 8 points 1 year ago

Seems like they're getting the "freedom of speech" they paid for.

[–] Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 year ago (10 children)

I personally think subscribtion model is better than ads so mocking these people seems kinda odd

[–] disasterpiece@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I agree with this sentiment but I think the real issue with this change is that Twitter Blue subscribers get their content’s visibility boosted. Without the blue checkmark visible, it’s impossible to tell who had their content boosted through organic engagement, and who paid for it

The Twitter Blue subscribers are not getting mocked for paying to remove ads. They are mocked for paying money to have their voices cary more weight. And they are paying that money to a company that as of late has supported CSAM, racism, and vaccine disinformation.

[–] VaidenKelsier@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Right. And now, going into an election year where misinformation is growing in weight and volume, we will have no idea who's artificially boosting their content.

Also, it means that every single breaking news tweet, who are you going to see first? All the dick riders who paid for Blue, which slants a very particular demographic's way.

2024 is going to be a nightmare.

[–] jtk@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Do blue checks not see ads? I agree, when a service is subscription/donation only, it's way better. But if any part of the business model is ad based, it's shit, and paying to hide them won't make it any better.

[–] bappity@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

they see "half" ads >_>
no joke

[–] snor10@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

Imagine paying and still seeing ads... smh

[–] Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 year ago

Well that's incredibly stupid. Removing ads is usually the reason I'm paying for a service. Ironic that I as a non-paying user see less ads than the ones that are paying for it.

[–] bmovement@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

What’s the difference between paying to get your tweets seen and paying to get your tweets seen?