Related - what’s the basis of the idea that subscription services do not look at usage metrics, or try to drive higher use? They care just as much about engagement- they just make money from it with retention.
-
-
Show this thread
-
I can see how a cost to have an account would affect large-scale automated trolling. But I don’t see what it would do to real people sharing things they believe, or attacking people they decide to hate. How would it affect the Pelosi video? Or WhatsApp rumours in India?
Show this thread -
One problem with the idea of a fee to use these services (for whatever reason): Jio's average monthly revenue per user is $1.80. Those users cannot afford $10/month for WhatsApp. So: what price is a barrier to troll-farms but not a barrier to basic comms for the next billion?
Show this thread -
That is, it’s very hard to see how ‘you should have to pay to use social’ doesn’t just mean ‘no-one in emerging markets can use social’. In turn, that just means you would displace the use to apps made by (Chinese/Brazilian/Iranian/wherever) companies that ignore this whole idea
Show this thread -
TLDR; in the bizarre event that you really could make Facebook charge a fee, everyone in the developing world would just switch to another, free app, made by another (probably Chinese) company, with all the same issues and more. <galaxybrain.gif>
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
If I were to make this argument, it would be to put a barrier in front of malicious actors. Same idea as making spam phone calls or emails not free. Once there's a cost to spamming the commons, we're less likely to get invasions of bots and low-paid basement dwellers pushing BS.
-
Isn’t the notion about fake news and bots affecting elections is all about how few resources someone smart needs to run it? Direct mail isn’t free to send too.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
...but then less engagement, less subscriptions, less revenue. Circular argument.
End of conversation
-
-
-
Isn’t the argument that if no longer dependent on ad revenue there’s less need for the outrage-drives-eyeballs machine thereby dampening the megaphone currently provided to whack-jobs, hate groups, extremists etc. Solid argument? Not sure....but I think that’s the take.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.