With a mighty hand, and an outstretched arm, Musk scraps Pope's blue tick In the same day that Elon Musk’s Twitter snubbed the Pope by removing his legacy blue tick despite personally paying for some celebrities to keep theirs, the billionaire’s personal fortune shrank by the biggest amount this year. Far be it from The Reg to suggest the two things were linked but Musk – seen by some a deity sent …
It's better to level the playing field, instead of the old aristocracy system.
If people are stupid enough to pay $8/ month to get a blue tick then at least we can all see they are stupid.
CUE: Lot's of comments from people "I've never used Twitter, but I've got strong opinions on all the hate speech that I would see if I was ever to go on there". Yes, there's some hate on there if you seek it out and follow nasty people. No, there doesn't seem to be any more than there was a year ago. But if I see people post racist stuff or harp on about Brexit constantly (either pro or anti) they get a hard BLOCK from me.
Yes, it's a bit of a cesspit and that's part of the reason it's so compelling. It's interesting, and you often get a spin on things that you just don't see in other places. Also, you often see breaking news on there first.
Also, I think the main criticism of this move is that you are going to get lots of people paying the $8 to set up fake accounts pretending to be real people.
Firstly, that's against the T&C and they should get taken down.
Secondly, how many people are really going to do that? Will they get many followers? Will they get bored and stop paying / go away?
I just don't see this turning into a huge problem, and if it does surely they will deal with it.
I think Elon is a deeply flawed human being, but he's doing some interesting stuff. They whole blocking SubStack thing is a real dick move. The guy is an asshole just like every other billionaire is, but he's just a lot more open about it than Peter Thiel, Bill Gates or even Steve Jobs (yes, he was also an asshole to a lot of people).
Twitter WAS a heavily biased place 1 year ago and before. Lab leak theory was suppressed. Big Pharma nastiness was suppressed. Hunter Biden laptop scandal was censored. At least it's a bit more open now, and you can criticise people on the left AND on the right. Any Oh Boy, do they all need some criticism. (sorry, I'm not a fan of politicians in general whatever colour they are)
Impersonation problems were the reason for the original blue check system. What makes you think the incentives to impersonate government agencies and major news sources have changed?
"Against the T&C" won't matter. We've already seen that the actual Twitter T&C now are "whatever Elon feels like today." And there are certain groups he has a hate boner for that will never see any protection on his site.
Impersonation problems were the reason for the original blue check system. What makes you think the incentives to impersonate government agencies and major news sources have changed?
Government agencies (and apparently the Pope) get a grey tick. Businesses, ie major news sources can get a gold tick. Everyone else can pay for a blue tick. Problem is still much the same as it ever was. People were impersonating others, Twitter got fined $750m, and it introduced the blue tick. Yey! People could get their identities validated.. somehow. Sometimes that included paying cash to someone at Twitter who could grant the sacred tick. The bearer of said tick may have been a PR company or marketing seem sitting behind a role account, but you could trust the tweet came from the individual it claimed to be. Couldn't you?
Now, getting the tick costs less than the reported $10k in cash or crypto, but some people think it should be free. It still costs less than say, a TV licence, or a monthly subscription to the NYT, Grauniad, or even the regular 'suggested contribution' demands from wiki. Problem is it still doesn't really seem to verify an individual is who they claim to be, but then reliable verification costs money. It's kind of hard to run a business when it's most demanding 'customers' expect free. I suspect the obvious solution is just going to be reminding Musk about that $750m fine given there's a lot of political appetite to for Musk's destruction now that he's turned to the dark side.
One of the things, certainly, but it's not like they don't complain about things that have happened. DeSantis complains about children learning things from books, for example, and that's happened on occasion. Might even happen again. I mean, not in Florida, but in places where there are still sane people.
It's better to level the playing field, instead of the old aristocracy system.
Giving "verification" ticks to frauds, trolls and randoms without actual verification isn't levelling the playing field, it's not even intelligent enough to be fuckwitted. However, it does have utility as a filter because loads of people are now automatically blocking blue tick holders. This leads to the amusing spectacle of blue tick buyers whinging that they're being heavily downrated due to the immense number of blocks they're receiving so they don't get the benefit of paying $8/month that they'd hoped for. This seems especially to apply to Musk's Analinguist in Chief, catturd2.
The problem is, the only "use" of the blue tick was to see if you were following who you thought you were following, because the owner's identity had been verified. Now, it is pot luck, whether you find the real account, a parody account or just some a'hole out for shits and giggles, or worse...
The only thing the blue tick now says, is whether somebody was mug enough to cough up $8 a month or not.
I'd ask how I can get my "free" checkmark removed so I don't have special privileges over everyone else who lost theirs.
Joe Biden's account (both his personal one and the official government one) lost their checkmarks. I'm sure there are already right wing trolls who are opening accounts under those names and paying for the checkmark, hoping to fool people into believing whatever nutjob conspiracy theories they want to push. And if that happens, I hope the government lets it happen rather than pay for a blue checkmark for the official accounts - the chaos would be a good way to show everyone how far Twitter has fallen since Musk took over.
Joe Biden's account (both his personal one and the official government one) lost their checkmarks.
Sounds fine. So, the person whose words are reported by every news media on earth can now delete his Twitter profile and say, repeatedly, "I do not use the platform Twitter in any capacity, public or private. If something is on Twitter purporting to be from me, it is categorically false." Wouldn't alter the twitterati, but would take a cut into the traffic on the platform from news reporters looking for some news. If that's what the muskrat wants, give it to him.
Quote
"Musk – seen by some a deity sent down to save humanity and others as a genius asshole "
You do realise that he could be both
Idiot move : buying twitter
Genius move : using a space rocket to dig its own flame trench.....
But then the line between genius and insanity is very narrow...........
A flame trench would have been problematic because it would be below sea level and had regulatory issues that would have delayed launch for years. A water deluge has environmental problems that may or may not be solvable. The original plan was a flame diverter. SpaceX tried to save money by not building one and retaining easy access to swap out engines while on the launch pad. With 20/20 hindsight, the months of delay filling in the hole will be expensive, and on a similar level to the delays that would have been incurred by installing something more substantial from the beginning. Other risky savings have paid off so I am very satisfied with Gwynne's overall strategy.
A flame trench would have been problematic because it would be below sea level and had regulatory issues that would have delayed launch for years. A water deluge has environmental problems that may or may not be solvable. The original plan was a flame diverter. SpaceX tried to save money by not building one and retaining easy access to swap out engines while on the launch pad.
Curious how they're going to resolve this I watched the launch and noticed the way it blew chunks. Scott Manley's video showed a pretty impressive excavation, so it looks like they're going to have to do something. Also curious if the scouring led to engine or other damage around the base. Was also impressed that the rocket held together as long as it did once it started performing it's aerobatics. I guess one option might be a caisson to allow a flame trench's construction, or I guess it'll have to be an above-ground rebuild that elevates the launch stand and tower. There was also a comment about 'engine rich exhaust', so whether those are going to need more rework. But much data collected.
It seems very likely that the first three engine failures were directly caused by impacts of excavated debris.
There will have been a lot of bits of concrete, sand and steel dust bouncing back up around the nozzles grinding down the engines for the few seconds before liftoff.
Worse, as they don't all light simultaneously, it's also very likely that the later nozzles ate a fair bit of sand before starting up.
It was significantly underperforming during the launch and never got anywhere near staging altitude. It seems likely that a lot of the engines were significantly damaged.
By their own criteria, it was a failure as it absolutely trashed the launch stand. The amount of sand scattered far and wide also means they're not going to get approval for another launch without some really significant civil engineering.
I do hope they try again, but it's not going to happen this year.
That the chaos is a subvertive attempt by musk to earn money.
Step 1: Reduce content monitoring and account checking
Step 2: remove free entitlement and start charging
Step 3: watch as the trolls cause chaos by either a) mimicing accounts or b) (ideal) starting paying for blue tick for a mimic account
Step 4: official people will be sick of misinformation and pay for ticks or trolls will continue to pay for ticks...
Step 5: bask in glorious profits
People who are providing content others seek out and want to see shouldn't have to pay to prevent trolls from posing as them - they are the reason people come to Twitter. If Musk drives them away, Twitter loses its relevance and therefore its audience. And then the advertisers really flee.
He's really not got the first clue about how Twitter's business operates.
He borrowed some to buy Twitter but do we have evidence he's leveraged beyond that? He's managing to tarnish Tesla's brand with the majority of the people who have been buying its cars so his net worth is likely to continue to decrease, but he will still be worth tens of billions no matter how badly he fucks things up.
I only found evidence that bankers lending money to Twitter were offering lower interest on a loan directly to Musk backed by his Tesla shares. The advantages to the bankers was clear: they could not reduce their risk by selling Twitter debt (offers were about 60cents/$). Musk would owe them an amount of money whatever Tesla was worth and if Tesla share price dropped below an agreed value the Bankers could force a sale of those shares. Apparently Musk did not go for it and instead has been selling large amounts Tesla repeatedly - presumably every time the price goes up.
Try a web search on "Musk sells Tesla". Many results, several different numbers corresponding to different dates. So many results that it is hard to find the number of shares sold without accidently double counting or multiplying by the wrong number because of share splits. If anyone knows the right part of the internet to look at, please post a link.
Musk wanted to reduce Twitter's dependence on advertising to around 50% of revenue. He has successfully halved advertising revenue, even though there was no need. The debt burden he has added to Twitter meant that even if advertising had remained constant he would still need other sources to double revenue just to break even.
Perhaps one day Musk will work out that the push from advertisers is something they are passing along from elsewhere and he should follow that back to the source. He clearly understands he antagonised a very large number of people. Those people push back by complaining to the companies who buy adverts on Twitter.
I am sure they are getting what they wanted: the identities of people who write things they disagree with and suppression of free speech they dislike. The bankers who lent Twitter Version 2 the money to buy Twitter version 1 may be unhappy at the moment because they cannot find greater fools to buy the debt at a good price. I am sure when X.com is ready to sell that debt directly a long line of fools will turn up.
An organisation led by an alleged infallible leader, whose pronouncements are taken as holy writ by his millions of followers, most of whom hope for a new life in the heavens by having faith in him, but try to deflect from the many scandals that have received publicity in recent times, Elon Musk's Twitter is still surprisingly tetchy about any criticism or perceived rivals for attention.
The @terryandrob account has been given a tick by Musk. Rhianna Pratchett is not amused.
Rich people not paying $8pm for a service that gives them a global voice, and they are boasting about it? Really? Since when were wealthy freeloaders popular?
Online services are only free for the rest of us if they can be monetised with 'pro' and corporate accounts. It's a completely normal way of running an online service and a fair way of providing universal services. And better than selling our data. Doesn't matter whether Musk is involved or not, the economics are the same. Any business has to at least break even or it will eventually shut down.
I don't understand the attitude of those who want Twitter to fail because Musk is in charge. It gives everyone a voice, which is democratic. That is a good thing. No one is forcing you to use it. Losing these services would silence 99% of users and only allow a privileged 1% to have a global voice. That would be a huge step back. If you are attacking the fundamentals of Web 2.0 you are arguing for yourself to be silenced, whether on social media or on El Reg.
First, entertainers posting to Twitter was a major source of Twitter traffic and advertising revenue. If entertaining is their day job, you can imagine them not wanting to pay for what they gave away for free. They could post elsewhere and make money from it.
Second, Twitter is no longer trying to be neutral platform. It's Elon Musk's soapbox. Lots of people and businesses want to be associated with it. Or maybe they don't want to pay Twitter's destroyer.
'Want' is not the only word. 'Expect' also applies. Debt financing a take over is normally sufficient to destroy a company. $12.7B at over 11% is more than sufficient to end Twitter in the hands of a skilled executive. Musk can keep Twitter alive by selling Tesla shares. He clearly cannot (and doesn't really want to) finance Twitter through advertising. $8/month isn't getting anything like the numbers he needs. That number goes up with followers so he is incentivising the the most popular contributors to go elsewhere, and the bigger they are the easier it will be for them to take followers with them. Twitter's previous management got Twitter to marginally profitable and could see the impending disaster to their investment if Musk gained control. They fought tooth and nail to keep him away until Musk demanded to buy them out completely at a very generous price. That is a group of people who actually knew what they were doing with zero confidence in Musk. The bankers lending the money thought they could sell the debt on before the rest of the world worked out what was going to happen. Musk himself used his Twitter account to proclaim to the world that he had made an enormous mistake and wanted out of the unbreakable agreement he had signed. He destroyed the half value of his own purchase before he took charge and skilled bankers could not find anyone dumb enough to rescue them. His "way out" is to become a payment processor / bank / stock trading shop. There cannot be many people on the planet brave enough to trust Musk with their money now he is world famous for not paying his bills.
A significant number of people wanted Twitter to fail before Musk was in charge. Musk has worked hard at exaggerating the features that created that desire. You may not understand why so many people want him to fail but Musk does - hence his big increase in expenditure on personal security (I think he is looking in the wrong direction: the biggest danger he faces is himself). Musk does not give everyone a voice. He is quite selective about how much reach people get depending on what they say. Other social media companies have failed and people moved on to a different service, which is how Twitter got started. When Twitter dies people will move onto a new alternative. That would be a huge step, but the direction is a matter of opinion.
You fear scenario is aimed in the wrong direction. Only proportion of one side vociferously express their terror at the prospect of being silenced.
It appears that lots and lots of blue ticks are coming back without the account holders paying for them. And this is probably the top of a slippery slope for twitter.
It seems that Mush has realised that his plan is fundamentally flawed. Charging 8 bucks a month for a blue tick might sound like a money spinner, but the problem is that it still doesn't rival the revenue from advertising. Several high profile scooby holders stated very publicly that they had absolutely no intention of paying for a blue tick. Some had even started they would leave twitter were they forced to pay. Twitter's and revenue depends very much on the volume of posts and the volume of interaction with this posts. Lose high profile accounts and you lose ad revenue. But not only that, lose accounts with a high enough profile and other account holders start to wonder if it's worth hanging around.
It was reported earlier in the weekend that accounts with more than a million followers were starting to get their ticks back without paying. However it also seems some accounts with fewer than a million followers are also getting their ticks back. However some accounts with many millions of followers still have no tick. There may be some logic behind who gets their ticks for free (apologies to Mark Knopfler for that one) but it isn't apparent.
Whatever the logic where does Mush draw the line? One account holder gets their tick back and another doesn't. The second account holder makes a public fuss, do they get their tick back too? If there is no published policy on how you get a free tick will people sue? If it says you have to pay and some people get them without paying with no published policy would a lawsuit succeed?
“Just Shatner, LeBron and King.” - Also, Michael Jackson, Kobe Bryant, and Chadwick Boseman. And lots of other dead people. I really wonder what phone number they've got on file for them.
The blue checkmark has nothing to do with authentication or verification any more. It's just a cash cow and, if you ask me, false advertising, as it implies some kind of authenticity.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
