Media Has No Interest In Paying For Twitter Blue
from the verified-for-what-now? dept
It’s been so weird the way Elon Musk and his friends have been jealous of underpaid, overworked journalists who happened to have blue check marks next to their name. There’s some sort of deep-seated insecurity to think that just because Twitter decided some people should be verified to avoid problems with impersonation that it was some sort of status symbol (again, as full disclosure, at some point in 2020 or 2021, my account got verified, though this was through no request on my own: until then I had been happily unverified, and one day I showed up and there was a mark next to my name with me not having asked for it and without any interest in getting it).
I’m sure some people who got it did think it was a status symbol, but for most people the actual purpose was purely utilitarian: to avoid impersonation. The new system practically seems to encourage impersonation, seeing as Musk and friends were so totally mixed up into thinking that the main benefit of having the blue checkmark is as a status symbol.
Among those who got the checkmark though, no group was more mocked and attacked for having it than journalists. There were, of course, legitimate concerns about journalist impersonation, which is likely why Twitter had a whole program around verifying journalists. But so many of the assumptions Musk seems to make are based on the idea that journalists, whom he mostly seems to hate, would so want to cling to this status symbol that their employers would pony up $1,000 per month and an additional $50 for each journalist.
On Thursday evening Twitter put out one of its increasingly common, confusingly worded statements about the new program, talking up how companies could now pay to verify their own “accounts they’re affiliated with.” So, now, rather than having Twitter protect your brand and your employees, you have to PAY TWITTER a ridiculously large monthly sum… to do all the work yourself?
And while they claim that lots of organizations are already on board (can’t wait to see which companies are so gullible), the media — the ones that people were so jealous of — appear to have zero interest in contributing to and giving credibility to this madness. Oliver Darcy over at CNN has the roundup:
“We aren’t planning to pay the monthly fee for check mark status for our institutional Twitter accounts,” a spokesperson for The New York Times said Thursday. “We also will not reimburse reporters for Twitter Blue for personal accounts, except in rare instances where this status would be essential for reporting purposes.”
The Los Angeles Times told staffers that Twitter is “not as reliable as it once was” and that it will “not be paying to verify our organization” on Twitter.
“Some of you may be wondering whether or not the L.A. Times will pay for Twitter Blue subscriptions, and the answer right now is no, for several reasons: First of all, verification no longer establishes authority or credibility, instead it will only mean that someone has paid for a Twitter Blue subscription,” said Sara Yasin, managing editor of the Los Angeles Times.
The Washington Post said it “will not pay for Twitter Blue service as an institution or on behalf of our journalists” because “it’s evident that verified checkmarks no longer represent authority and expertise.”
BuzzFeed also told staffers at BuzzFeed News and HuffPost that it will not pay for them to retain their checkmarks on Twitter.
“As an organization, we will not cover fees for individuals to keep their blue checkmarks moving forward,” Karolina Waclawiak, editor in chief of BuzzFeed News, and Danielle Belton, editor in chief of HuffPost, told staffers in a message to both newsrooms. “There are several reasons for this, but one outweighs them all: a blue checkmark no longer means the handle is ‘verified.’”
Vox Media also advised staffers that “it will generally not pay for employees to keep or gain Twitter verification,” according to a memo from group publisher Christopher Grant.
POLITICO additionally said it will not pay for Twitter Blue.
It’ll be interesting to see how this all plays out.
However, there’s one interesting element in all of this: as lots of people discuss, Twitter has never been as widely used as some of the other, bigger, social media platforms. But it punched above its weight, in part because so many journalists relied on it. It was basically the water cooler chat for many, many journalists (myself included). And, because of that, it became super valuable in driving news stories.
But with the moves that Musk is making, beyond driving away advertisers, he’s been driving away what made Twitter the center of attention: journalists’ reliance on the site. And if he makes the site less useful for them, by making it less safe for them and driving away their colleagues, then it loses the one actual competitive advantage the site ever had.
Filed Under: elon musk, journalists, twitter blue, verified
Companies: twitter
Comments on “Media Has No Interest In Paying For Twitter Blue”
good
Everyone refuse to pay except for havoc-wreaking trolls so that blue check marks come to mean the sign of a havoc-wreaking troll who is also dumb enough to pay for a meaningless token.
Re:
Does that mean the check mark will identify the sort of people Elon wants on the platform?
Re: Re:
Considering how most of the people willing to pay for the badge are the kind of people who would kiss his ass without reservation? Probably.
Re: Re:
Yes.
Elon associates with white supremacists, “conservative” grifters and dictators, so at the very least, it’ll act like a list of people to actively avoid.
Re:
Now just imagine EM’s apoplectic reaction to the inevitably forthcoming web browser plugins that will automatically hide all tweets from accounts with checkmarks….
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
We know you liked the woke ideological censorship the old management of Twitter provided for you, and you resent Musk for taking that censorship away. But posting endless numbers of articles disparaging Musk isn’t going to bring the censorship back.
Re:
Hyman.
We know you were told specifically to stop harassing trans people here, and you resent Mike for doing just that. But posting endless numbers of comments disparaging Mike isn’t going to bring your commenting privileges back.
Re:
I am not the least bit surprised you have no concept of how journalism operates. It’s the job of reporters to report on important news and several major news organizations saying fuck off to Twatter’s worthless new blue badge of late stage capitalism is important tech news, which is what this site focuses on. Masnick is doing the job he is paid for. You are whiteknighting the world’s richest man for free.
Re:
If the old management of Twitter banned you and people of your ilk, then I am 1000% for that type of censorship.
Your views are garbage and do not deserve be spewed everywhere you think they should be spewed. Your views should be relegated to garbage sites like Truth Social and 4chan, they will happily accept you while the rest of us compassionate humans can converse elsewhere without having to wade through your bullshit.
Re: Re:
4chan would also like filth like Hyman to slink back to their containment zones and stay there as well.
You know you are unwelcome when /b/ wants you to please go and stay go.
Re: Re:
The essence of free speech is that gatekeepers do not get to decide what views deserve to be heard.
Re: Re: Re:
…which platform moderation is not in any way.
Re: Re: Re:2 A heckler's veto for every bigot
I’m sure it’s just a complete coincidence that that version of ‘free speech’ would allow the most hostile and/or bigoted people to essentially eliminate any minority involvement in the overall conversation by harassing and/or intimidating them into silence.
Re:
We know you liked the woke ideological censorship the old management of Twitter provided for you,
Yes, I do miss the days when people that posted violent and extremists views were told to take their crap elsewhere. Or I would, had I ever bothered with Twitter other than to use the API in alert programming, which is now non-functional due to Twitter policy. Their property, their rules.
and you resent Musk for taking that censorship away.
I’m not aware of anyone censored by Twitter. Simply those that were told, “No, you are not allowed to graffiti our garage door anymore.” Trump even set up his own infrastructure because he was thrown off Twitter. Proof he wasn’t censored at all. Just not allowed to use someone else private property anymore.
But posting endless numbers of articles disparaging Musk isn’t going to bring the censorship back.
1. Truth is an absolute defense to defamation (or disparagement)
2. Opinion is protected absolutely. From the government. Not from private interests. An example is the restaurant, since closed, that had a sign on the front door that read “Woke Liberals NOT WELCOME HERE”. So we didn’t eat there.
3. No one of any import really cares about Twitter – it jumped the shark long ago. Musk’s purchase merely accelerated it’s fall in to utter inconsequence by a few months.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Censorship is the act of the censor, silencing opinions based on viewpoint on platforms the censor controls. The ability of the silenced to dial elsewhere is irrelevant.
It is true that Masnick would like the censorship back. For people who claim not to care about Twitter, they sure talk about it a lot.
Re: Re: Re:
It’s amusing how you continue to lie. You, yourself, insist that companies have the right to moderate, and also insist that they must do so to keep decorum. And you get mad at anyone who says that you support forcing those companies to not moderate, as you carefully distinguish your position as being what the companies should be pressured to do, rather than what they should be forced to do.
Yet, when I explain to you, repeatedly, the nuance of my position: which is that I did not support the way in which Twitter moderated in the past, and actually called out the many problems with it in many articles, I still supported their right to moderate as they see fit. Yet, despite me explaining this to you, you continue to lie, and directly misrepresent my position as “liking” the way they moderated.
Why is that? Why do you insist on a particular standard for how people should respect the nuance of your position, while deliberately ignoring that nuance in mine?
It’s almost like you’re a dishonest hack.
Re: Re: Re:2
“Because nuance is reserved for right-wing positions.” — Hyman, probably
Re: Re: Re:2
A dishonest hack banned from a bunch of fine conservative places, as per his own admission.
Turns out his form of Reddit-level belligerence is… not welcome anywhere.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
I’m pretty sure you have said that banning viewpoints you don’t like (which you call harassment and hate speech) is good for free speech because it will encourage more people whose viewpoints you do like to speak, and more such speech is more free speech.
I believe I’ve asked you before whether you have a way of saying “transwomen are men” that you don’t consider to be hate speech and harassment, and I don’t think I’ve ever gotten an answer. If you don’t have such a way, then you are relegating dissent of woke gender ideology to silence, because I believe that you do say you want hate speech and harassment silenced.
Twitter suspended the Babylon Bee’s account for satirically giving Dr. Rachel Levine a Man of the Year award. Did you support that ban? Was that under the old management of Twitter? Do you think Musk would have done that? If not, doo you dislike Musk for that?
As I have said before, I believe you have wholly committed to woke ideology, gender and otherwise, you would like dissent against it to be silenced, and you try to find ways to spin such silencing as somehow not being in conflict with free speech, which you also claim to support.
This has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment either. Free speech is larger than that – it’s an idea and a value, not just a restriction against the government. I believe one of the ways you try to reconcile your desire for censorship and your claimed support for free speech is to hide behind the legalism of the 1st Amendment, so that you can claim that outsourcing censorship to private parties doesn’t restrict free speech because the private parties are allowed to do it. But private parties using their own right of free speech to degrade the free speech of their users is still degrading the ability of their users to speak freely, even when those users don’t have a right to speak freely on platforms they don’t own, and even if they can find another place to speak.
Re: Re: Re:3
I said no such thing. I said that allowing websites to set their own rules, allowing them to craft them to attract what kinds of communities they want, and which kinds of speech they don’t want, is what enables more free speech, by creating more spaces where people feel comfortable speaking. Again, you are completely steamrolling over what my position actually was.
There are many ways to say “I disagree with your beliefs” that do not need to include a method that is tied to harassment and hate speech. That you choose to only use those that abuse and harass is on you, dude.
I have literally no opinion on that ban beyond that Twitter has the right to do it and I understand why they did it, though I likely would not have done the same were I leading Twitter. I think, like many Babylon Bee articles, that it was mean spirited and not even remotely funny. But, considering that you keep insisting websites should moderate for “decorum” do you not understand why Twitter might have done that for “decorum” purposes, and hoping not to drive away many of its users who found that statement abusive, and contributing to hatred towards themselves and others?
I’m quite sure Elon would not have taken down that speech, as is his right, and if he wishes to drive trans users away from his platform by encouraging hate, that’s his decision to make. I have no like or dislike for Musk based on that.
Because you’re an idiot. I honestly have very little opinion of “gender ideology” beyond that I believe it’s literally no fucking business of my own to care about what is in the underwear of anyone other than those with whom I am in a position to consensually share that information. And I believe in respecting other people, so if they tell me their name, I respectfully call them by that name, rather than disrespecting them and calling them something else.
The rest of whatever you refer to as “ideology” I do not know about. I don’t see what about my position is tied to any ideology other than respecting people.
I do admit that I find it creepy as fuck that you seem obsessed with knowing what is in the underwear of other people.
I have no desire to silence anyone. I support everyone’s right to speak. Including the right to be disrespectful and to say absolute nonsense. But I also respect the right of private property owners, including myself, to say “not on my property.”
I find it sad that you repeatedly insist that your obsession with the genitals of children makes you think you should be able to override that right and to ignore the polite requests from property owners for you to leave or learn some fucking respect.
Yes, you say that all the time. But your “idea and value” involves denying private property owners their own free speech rights. Which I find offensive.
I love how you started out this silly, silly comment by claiming (falsely) that I support censorship, when you admit here at the end that your belief in free speech means that you believe private property owners should give up their own free rights.
Only one of us is committed to actual free speech rights, dude. And it’s not you.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
It sounds as if you have been hearing the same illusory version of me who speaks to Stephen T. Stone. I have never even once said that property owners should give up their free speech rights. I have said that in a society that has freedom of speech as a foundational value, large generic speech platforms should respect that value, and out of such respect, freely choose not to silence opinions based on their viewpoint. If they make the wrong choice, they should be criticized, shamed, or bought to get them to change their way. Of all people, you should understand that, since you are providing an endless stream of articles criticizing and shaming Musk, while agreeing that he has the right to do whatever he wants with his platform.
Why do I think you are totally committed to woke gender ideology? Well, consider the disingenuousness with which you say that dissent against it is simply being “obsessed with knowing what is in the underwear of other people”, as if this is purely a matter of individual privacy and behavior. But it is not. Whether it’s bathrooms, locker rooms, prisons, sororities, or sports teams, dissent against woke gender ideology includes keeping people out of single-sex spaces for which their bodies disqualify them, when that is the wish of the people already present in those spaces. Many people have religious, cultural, and social beliefs and taboos against mixing sexes in certain contexts, and the desires of some people to be seen as a different sex than that of their body does not trump the beliefs of other people.
Dissent also means investigating whether people, including children, are being properly served by the medical profession when it comes to gender dysphoria. It means that woke gender ideology should not be considered so established that it is taught as the truth in public schools.
I don’t think saying “I disagree with your beliefs” is an adequate counter to “transwomen are women” (which I imagine you do not regard as harassment and hate speech) when that position is being institutionalized wherever woke ideologues gain political supremacy. It is necessary to have robust expressions of views to win political fights. Supporters need to be energized, not enervated.
Re: Re: Re:5
Dude, shut the fuck up and leave already. I’d rather stab myself in the eyes than read another one of your heavily scripted anti-trans screeds.
Re: Re: Re:5
So you demand that I only suggest you hold the views which you explicitly claim to have, rather than those implied, yet you refuse to grant me that same courtesy?
How interesting.
Re: Re: Re:6
Hyman is proof that endless hate for a Repugnant Cultural Other based only on who they are does weird-ass things to people’s brains.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
You can say whatever you like. You were wrong about what I said, so I posted a correction. A correction is not a demand.
You would like to argue against those “implied” views (although such implication exists only in your mind) because those views, being wrong, are obviously much easier to counter than the explicitly stated correct views.
Re: Re: Re:7
I mean, he corrected you, first, yet you continue to argue against the strawman. Take your own advice.
Re: Re: Re:7
No. This started when YOU were wrong about what I said. So I posted a correction. And yet, you kept insisting that the fake Mike in your very, very, very confused brain must be correct.
And you continue to be wrong (not to mention obsessed with the genitalia of people who have no interest in you, and making up false shit about me and many others). Stop it.
Re: Re: Re:3
He never said such thing Hyman, but I’m not at all surprised you totally misinterpreted what he actually said because the point he was making is something you will never understand even though multiple people have explained it to you on numerous occasions.
Why do you ask Mike? Go ask a trans person but considering your attitude they will correctly assume you are doing it for the simple reason to harass them.
What do you think the reaction would have been if they “satirically” gave Malik Abdul Aziz a “Christian of the Year” award? It’s in the same vein of humor with the single intent of harassing someone.
We already know what you believe and that is anyone not agreeing with you must be “woke”. Your idea of free speech is that of a simpleton and you have no clue about nuance, discretion and consistency.
Everyone has the right to decide who they associate with. Your free speech rights ends where other peoples rights begin, period. Or are you so deluded that you believe that you idea of free speech must be allowed to infringe on other peoples rights? You can talk up a storm what other people or companies should do, but they still have their right to disassociate themselves from you whenever they want.
TL;DR: You couldn’t give a shit about how unfettered speech forced upon others affects them because it’s all about you and what you want in the end. All I hear from you is basically Me, Me, ME, MEEEE! You have zero empathy, and by that I mean that you lack the capacity to understand what other people actually feel and how they react to speech directed at them – because the last part is the measuring-stick you should use when interacting with other people, not your own foibles.
Re: Re: Re:4
I think it’s less that he doesn’t understand and more that he doesn’t care.
Re: Re: Re:3
No its not, its them exercising their freedom of association by telling you to go away.
Also, how can a trans woman exercise their freedom of speech if you leap into every conversation, whether it involves gender or not, and tell everybody that they are a man and deluded and that they should use the mans restroom?
Re: Re: Re:4
Hyman just wants to force everyone to conform to his delusional false beliefs about gender.
Re: Re: Re:4
By speaking.
Re: Re: Re:
Censorship is the act of the censor, silencing opinions based on viewpoint on platforms the censor controls. The ability of the silenced to dial elsewhere is irrelevant.
Reasoning by analogy, then you’d be fine if I came into your living room and dropped a load as my form of expression.
Fortunately, there are rights of private property in the United States, at least for the nonce. So, If I see you approaching my front door with a strained look in your eye and a quick step, you will not be invited in.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
No, I would not let you do that.
My house is not a generic speech platform. No one is allowed to come and speak there unless explicitly invited.
Defecation is not speech, despite woke ideologues believing that crazed, stinking, drug-addled, possibly dangerous bums should be allowed to “speak” this way on city streets, parks, and cemeteries.
Generic speech platforms should moderate speech for spam, topicality, and decorum, even while not silencing opinions based on viewpoint.
Censorship remains censorship even when the private platform censors speech for reasons it finds good and sufficient.
Re: Re: Re:3
So, this “generic speech platform” certification? Who does that? Did you self appoint yourself to that job? Because Twitter is just a social media company that gets to set its own fucking rules, no matter what you think it is.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Yes, being a generic speech platform is self-appointed, where “self” may be the decision of the platform itself, or may stem from the expectations its users acquire. (The “large” part comes from doing the job well.) Usenet, Reddit, Twitter, and Facebook are all generic speech platforms.
Every platform not run by the government gets to set its own rules in as arbitrary a fashion as it likes. In a society that has free speech as a foundational value, large generic speech platforms should set up their rules so that they do not silence opinions based on viewpoint. If they do choose to silence opinions based on viewpoint, they should be shamed, criticized, or bought to get them to change.
Re: Re: Re:5
That’s not what “self-appointed” means. Also, why should user expectations be relevant? Users get things wrong all the time.
So punishing success. Gotcha.
Aside from banning certain topics and compliance with certain laws, Reddit itself does very little moderation. Most moderation is done on a subreddit basis, and each subreddit is not generic. To me, Reddit appears to be more of a platform for speech platforms rather than a generic speech platform itself.
I still see no evidence that Twitter ever silenced opinions based solely on viewpoint, at least as a trend.
Re: Re: Re:5
So you made up this classification, and insist that because of this classification that only exists in your head, sites should give up their own private property rights and freedoms… because you’re upset they don’t let you publicly creep out people by demanding to know about their genitalia?
Seems credible.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
I “made up” this classification in the sense that people “make up” descriptions of anything using “language”. I have described what I mean by it any number of times, and can do so again. Platforms are large when they have many users. The ones I usually talk about have anywhere from millions to billions. They are platforms because they host their users. They are speech platforms because people use them to (duh) speak. They are generic because people use them, or believe they can use them, to speak on any topic they please.
And of course, I have never insisted that any site, of any classification whatsoever, give up any rights or freedoms. As usual, you would like to put it in those terms so that you can hide behind the legalism of the 1st Amendment to (correctly) claim that sites cannot be forced to do that. What I have said, and will continue to say, is that in a society that has free speech as a foundational value, large generic speech platforms should choose not to silence opinions based on viewpoint, because such silencing is immoral. If they choose to behave immorally anyway, they should be criticized, shamed, or bought to try to get them to change. If they are unwilling to change, so be it; there is no shortage of private entities who choose to behave badly.
Speaking of creeping out people by demanding to know about their genitalia, do you have an opinion of dating sites that require their members to specify the nature of their genitalia? Do you think that is wrong for straight men and lesbians to only want to date real women? Or for straight women and gay men to only want to date real men? Perhaps dating sites should not specify sex at all; why dismiss half of all available humanity because of preconceived notions of whom you might like? The results might be fabulous!
Re: Re: Re:7
Again you come up with arbitrary criteria, and then insist that they mean that those sites need to cater to your peculiar interests, rather than the best interests of their users, shareholders, customers, partners, etc.
Re: Re: Re:7
Your cis straight white maleness is no longer welcome, Hyman. You are a TERRORIST keeping us from transitioning and progressing towards a fabulous utopia. You’re the reason why my country believes in imaginary sky friend filth. We must treat you as such and will call you a TERRORIST until you go away.
TERRORIST. TERRORIST. TERRORIST.
Re: Re: Re:5
I like your logic, as if a platform grows big because of its moderation policies, it should then stop its moderation because it has grown big. That is the logic of a hateful person who wants to force people to accept them into their company.
Re: Re: Re:3
So is my house, and Mike’s site and Twitter. And those fine conservative sites you were booted from, Nazi.
But then again, you’re a bloody hypocrite and still hate private property, until YOU get to control who says what.
That’s usually a red flag.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Urging others to behave properly is not controlling them. Telling others that they are doing something morally wrong even though they are permitted to do that is not hating their right to do it.
In particular, pointing out that TechDirt has both set itself up as a supporter of free speech and chooses to moderate in such a way as to inconvenience the statement of opinions it does not like is neither hating of free speech nor of moderation nor of their right to do either.
Re: Re: Re:5
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
Re: Re: Re:7
Hyman.
We know you were told specifically to stop harassing trans people here, and you resent Mike for doing just that. But posting endless numbers of comments disparaging Mike isn’t going to bring your commenting privileges back.
Re: Re: Re:5
… has never happened in the real world.
Re:
…said nobody not on hallucinogens, ever.
Re:
“Woke” means you think CSAM is bad, apparently, looking at what pedo guy Musk has done
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Special Like Everyone Else
They liked it for another reason: it was a chat room for the elite. The excuse about identity verification was only a secondary concern. We’ve heard the testimonials now about how old Twitter had a filter feature for the blue checks to only see posts from other blue checks who tweeted at them. It was very much a status symbol that allowed them to interact with other celebrities and media figures. And because of the acceptance bias, it was very much the cool kids club.
New Twitter has broken the system, by allowing anyone to pay the fee and get verified. Instead of applying the filter to chat among comrades, media figures get a taste of equality and get to see tweets from “ordinary” people. So the exclusive club is closed, and they’re very resentful about it. Without their elite rolodex, I’m unsurprised that they don’t want to pay.
Re: Re:
Do you have some syndrome that makes you forget facts that doesn’t fit your worldview? Like for example, how anyone could pay just $8/month for a verified badge before Musk took over.
And that makes me wonder, what “ordinary” people will pay the new exorbitant fees? It’ll certainly not be “ordinary” people.
So, an “exclusive club” anyone could pay $8 for isn’t exclusive anymore because now you have to pay thousands of dollars instead. I’m sure you thought it sounded smart in your head but in reality it is so stupid I’m wondering if you are on drugs or something.
Re: Re: Re:
That’s not correct. Twitter Blue existed, and was $5 per month, but it was not connected to the verification/blue check program. That’s new since Elon took over.
Re: Re: Re:2
Mea culpa, mixed those two up – blue this and blue that. People could apply for verification since 2021 and the idea that it was an “exclusive club” is just silly because there where people with few to none followers that had it.
Re: Re: Re:
I don’t know if that is an accurate statement. AFAIR, the $8/month was for “Twitter Blue” which gave you some enhanced features, but didn’t come with a verified badge.
Being able to pay for that badge has only been a Musk Twitter thing.
TBF, Twitter fed into that notion when they started revoking “verified” status for people who broke the rules.
And now, Neither will the White House (Via Axios
Springtime for Elon...
I still suspect Twitter is Elon’s real-time version of “The Producers”. There must be some obscure IRS ruling that convinced him that he is money ahead if he can toss his Twitter investment into a financial bonfire.
Re:
It’s weird how even among Musk’s critics you get people who still think there must be some grand plan behind his actions, rather than accept the simple explanation that he’s just an idiot.
Re: Re:
Agreed. Every time Musk makes an announcement about a new Twitter “feature,” I wonder whether he’s every used any site on the internet OTHER than Twitter.
Because it seems like everything he does is designed to be easily abused, and drive away both legitimate users and advertisers.
(I’m also convinced, btw, that he’s praying the FTC gives him a massive fine, so that Twitter’s now-inevitable bankruptcy can be blamed on goverment overreach rather than his own disastrous mismanagement.)
Re: Re: Re:
Purely opinion: I disagree with you. Because I suspect he isn’t mentally capable of believing that anything he has done has been less than perfect.
Re:
I’d blame it on the Delaware Chancery Court, but, uh…
He tried to NOT pay the $1billion breakup fee. He was taken to court to honor the deal.
He chose to spite everyone by burning his own mon ey to turn Twitter into a cesspit.
Re: Re:
That’s the fucking funniest thing about this entire clown show: Elon could’ve paid a fraction of what he actually paid for Twitter and avoided all of this bullshit. Now he gets to be the main character of Twitter on any day that Donald Trump isn’t being held accountable by the legal system.
Re: Re: Re:
He did not have a “$1 Billion breakup fee”. Elon musk did not have the power to just say “im not going to do this” pay a billion dollars and walk away.
I know a lot of people keep saying it, but Popehat and Legal Eagle and Hoeg Law were very clear. That fee was not applicable to the situation where one party choose unilaterally to not complete the deal despite completing the deal being within their power.
Re: Re: Re:
No he could not have paid a fraction.
Once he signed that merger agreement he was stuck with buying Twitter pending the shareholders voting to sell Twitter. And the people on Twitters side who crafted the agreement knew/expected that Musk would try to wriggle out of it and blocked of every option of escape including fucking around with that shareholder vote.
The reason that Musk folded at the Chancery Court was because that court told his lawyers in no uncertain terms that wishes are not a reason to break a perfectly valid contract and that it was going to rule based on that.
Re: Re: Re:
This is false. He signed a deal to pay $44 billion. There was no out for a fraction of what he actually paid. That’s people misreading the contract.
Re: Re: Re:2
Fair point; please disregard my bullshit.
Re: Re: Re:3
That being said, Thank you for acknowledging your mistake. Many people fall back and double down on them and it makes interactions all the more toxic for it. Glad to see you doing otherwise, it shows your good character.
Re: Re:
There was no breakup fee.
The fee was in case outside interference prevented Musk from buying Twitter (a regulatory agency saying no), Twitter having a skeleton in the closet that they didn’t disclose and you’d need to do due diligence for to find (this one would have resulted in Twitter having to pay Musk and is why Musk latched onto the claims made by Mudge), or Musk not managing despite doing his best to get the money to buy Twitter (never an option with how much money Musk has in various assets).
Re: Re:
Please stop repeating this myth. He could not have paid a $1 billion breakup fee. That was only if OUTSIDE forces (regulators, or something like that) blocked the deal. It was not a walk away fee. When he signed the deal he was committed to paying $44 billion. Full stop.
Re: Re: Re:
Got it loud and clear.
Must have read the coverage wrong then.
Re: Re:
Nah, there was no way to break the deal unless there was serious fraud on Twitter’s part, which there wasn’t, but Elon thought he could imply there was and walk away and be a right wing hero, which he couldn’t. He also thought he could escape the Delaware courts, he couldn’t do that either… And then when he realised that his personal communications on the issue with other billionaires could become a matter of public record, he paid up in days.
Who cares about blue checks? I want a red "V".
Blue checks had a function. Now they’re just a status symbol.
What I want is a bright red “vilified” letter “V”. It would work this way: If someone pays $5 to put a “V” on someone, there it is. If some other people don’t like their favorite being vilified, they can pay $5 to remove the “V”.
It would be like a war between the people paying $5 to vilify a heel and more people paying $5 to keep their hero unvilified. Any time the vilify count has more vilifies than un-vilifies, there’s the red “V”.
I can think of two people I’d pay $5 to vilify, right off.
Heck, we could even run our elections on that: the politician without a “V” wins.
I mean, what a money making idea!
I’d live with a check next to my name, for that kind of money.
Re:
Competitive Scarlet Lettering. Well, it’s certainly a unique idea…
Twitter Blue 2.0: 'Pay More For Less'
He took something that was free and did have value and changed it so it costs and costs dearly but stripped away the value in the process as now all it verifies is that someone paid him money… honestly I can’t imagine why people and organizations aren’t falling over themselves to pay for the new and improved service he’s offering.
Coming soon: You can only use twitter if you invest in Twitcoin.
People are talking about the functionality of verification, but I feel it is important to also explain why it is a status symbol, and thus why Musk f-ed up this in every way.
From what I can tell, those who see verification as a status symbol do so because it is so hard and so rare. By making it a pay in system, it no longer has that allure, so it’s irrelevant for that.
Why bring that up when it arguably should not have been a function of the symbol to begin with? Well, the symbol only ever served—both in practice and the theory—two functions: as a status symbol, and as proof of identity. The new system removes both. As such, why would anyone who isn’t either gullible or a scammer want to buy Twitter Blue for the verification icon? It seems like bad business to me.
Over here in Australia, various “journalists” with blue ticks were very quick to disparage Twitter and its users even before Musk took over.
Well then
WaPo is about as accurate as the daily enquirer or whatever with their fake stories about flying cars and bat boy and, oh, inventing a story about Trump degrading veterans.
The comments about NYT are accurate. A once well respected news service in 2016 decided to turn itself into a propaganda rag. Even as it now try’s to recover the damage is done.
But, nobody cares about the check mark anyway. Have it or not. Doesn’t really change any perception.
Unless you’re brain dead you take anything on the internet with a bit of doubt.
Re:
Actually, that’s the NEW YORK Post that’s yhe batboy-level tabloid, along it”s fellow rag the Washington TIMES.
It’s a common mistake of those who aren’t thinking that hard to transpose those names as above.
Re: Re:
Though the New York Times ain’t what it used to be either.
I am very thankful to you as your article has given me lots of ideas. I enjoyed a lot by reading this post. Thanks for sharing your blog.
https://www.dtmcontractinginc.com/