Elon Musk now owns 9.2% of twitter...update.. will soon be the sole owner as Board of Directors accepts his purchase offer

Page 232 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,273
10,933
136

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
24,027
13,536
136
At the end of the day Elon Musk is a shitty little bitch.
This is a first for me personally, noone has gone from my a list to my shit list in the timeframe Elon has… thats some faster than light travel right there. Fuck that wise and beautiful woman.
 

Heartbreaker

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2006
4,340
5,464
136
Elon can't accept that the vast majority of people aren't going to pay for Twitter. People mostly don't pay for online newspapers with real journalists. They certainly aren't going to pay for celebrity gossip they can read for free elsewhere.

The people who just read twitter won't.

Those that tweet a lot might because without paying their tweets won't be promoted.

Effectively, it's pay or be shadow-banned.
 

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
12,314
9,170
136
The people who just read twitter won't.

Those that tweet a lot might because without paying their tweets won't be promoted.

Effectively, it's pay or be shadow-banned.

Not really. It's a stupid idea on his part. It only impacts the "For you" suggestions that come from their algorithm. Which no one sane should actually use. You'll still see everyone you're following in the "Following" section.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,710
51,001
136
The people who just read twitter won't.

Those that tweet a lot might because without paying their tweets won't be promoted.

Effectively, it's pay or be shadow-banned.
Maybe, but that means people will stop using the 'for you' feature because the only people showing up in it will be thirsty shitheads, desperate for attention.

Twitter's recommendation algorithm was made to show people content that would interest them. Now it sounds like Musk is changing it to show content people paid for, which is basically advertising. Would you watch a TV channel of nothing but ads?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,710
51,001
136
But how do they discover new ones to follow? It's probably often looking at the stuff recommended to them.
Right, but those recommendations are almost certainly based on who you already follow or who lots of other people follow, etc., not who paid $8.

From what it sounds like to me it's just a TV station that only shows commercials. Would you watch that?
 

Heartbreaker

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2006
4,340
5,464
136
Right, but those recommendations are almost certainly based on who you already follow or who lots of other people follow, etc., not who paid $8.

From what it sounds like to me it's just a TV station that only shows commercials. Would you watch that?

I expect the recommendations remain based on the same things, except they will filter out the non-payers.

Pretty much everyone with an interest in growing their followers will likely pay.

As is the only thing I use that has recommendations is YouTube, and most of the channels I follow come from recommendations, so I guess I do watch that... Whether that list is somehow filtered is kind of irrelevant to me as a consumer, and much more relevant to the content producers.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,710
51,001
136
I expect the recommendations remain based on the same things, except they will filter out the non-payers.

Pretty much everyone with an interest in growing their followers will likely pay.

As is the only thing I use that has recommendations is YouTube, and most of the channels I follow come from recommendations, so I guess I do watch that... Whether that list is somehow filtered is kind of irrelevant to me as a consumer, and much more relevant to the content producers.
This is exactly my point - they will filter out the non-payers, which is going to be huge swaths of their most popular users and leave only the sad and thirsty people who feel the need to pay to grow their followers. I've discovered lots of interesting people to follow through the current algorithm and I can't think of a single one I expect to pay for thisThis means people are going to avoid the 'for you' area like the plague.

I suspect they will walk this back in short order after they see the collapse because this is a transparently stupid idea.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,282
10,879
136
The people who just read twitter won't.

Those that tweet a lot might because without paying their tweets won't be promoted.

Effectively, it's pay or be shadow-banned.
And this shows how social is making editorial decisions on what is recommended and therefore should not be allowed to hide behind section 230.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,710
51,001
136
And this shows how social is making editorial decisions on what is recommended and therefore should not be allowed to hide behind section 230.
Companies are free to make editorial decisions on the content they host and not lose section 230 protections.

Section 230 is really simple. It basically says if someone else created the content then the platform isn't responsible for its content.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Heartbreaker

Heartbreaker

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2006
4,340
5,464
136
This is exactly my point - they will filter out the non-payers, which is going to be huge swaths of their most popular users and leave only the sad and thirsty people who feel the need to pay to grow their followers. I've discovered lots of interesting people to follow through the current algorithm and I can't think of a single one I expect to pay for thisThis means people are going to avoid the 'for you' area like the plague.

I suspect they will walk this back in short order after they see the collapse because this is a transparently stupid idea.

I disagree. Most of the popular users are precisely those interested in being popular, and thus they will pay to keep growing that popularity.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,710
51,001
136
I disagree. Most of the popular users are precisely those interested in being popular, and thus they will pay to keep growing that popularity.
Well, I guess we'll see. I bet the feature is reworked or scrapped within six months.

Not to mention I just realized that since people in the 'For You' tab will have by definition paid for Twitter Blue it's basically going to be a one stop shop for mockery. The current Twitter Blue was (or will be?) changed so that people can hide their Twitter Blue affiliation due to how much they are being made fun of.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,282
10,879
136
Companies are free to make editorial decisions on the content they host and not lose section 230 protections.

Section 230 is really simple. It basically says if someone else created the content then the platform isn't responsible for its content.
And this is wrong and why section 230 needs to be redone.