Elon Musk

All the fuss about blue ticks and people are overlooking the central point. The blue tick is now meaningless. It used to mean something, that value has been sold out. Over time people will just adapt to ignore a blue tick.

Twitter had value as it built a solid base of very high profile commentators who were respected and identifiable by the tick. Its hard to see it going anywhere but backwards.
 
BlueMoonday said:
Politics aside, it is funny to see some "entitled" celebs lose their shit having lost their blue tick. Their true colours come out when they don't get their own way.

I know blue tick ensures the safety of "celebs" etc, just funny to see the meltdown over something quite trivial.

Some folk on there have gained significant revenue from a platform that's been free since it was created.
Click to expand...
Of course it’s fucking free. They’re the content creators. Without them posting then no one goes on it and it receives no add revenue.

YouTube pays its creators, it doesn’t charge them.

You’ve completely missed the point and there’s not a single celeb worried about paying $8 a month - the expected revenue of the blue ticks is forecast to be under $20m. It’s the fact that verification is now absolutely meaningless which is why Musk is running around trying to give free ticks to celebs that don’t want them.
 
Everyone with over a million followers has been given their blue tick back.

Musk/Twitter had no choice, interactions and people using the platform significantly decreased in that one day.

I do think the blue tick helps to identify legitimate people on the platform easier, take Akanji's emoji tweet the other night, people weren't sure it was him. As long as people who pay for it can't imitate them.
 
SWP's back said:
Of course it’s fucking free. They’re the content creators. Without them posting then no one goes on it and it receives no add revenue.

YouTube pays its creators, it doesn’t charge them.

You’ve completely missed the point and there’s not a single celeb worried about paying $8 a month - the expected revenue of the blue ticks is forecast to be under $20m. It’s the fact that verification is now absolutely meaningless which is why Musk is running around trying to give free ticks to celebs that don’t want them.
Click to expand...
Sorry but some "celebs" are not "content creators". They offer no value.

YT is a completely different platform where youtubers actually provide value, share knowledge and is a learning experience for the viewer. People on twitter plug their books, products and tweet (in lot of cases) unfunny drivel or rants.

My post was just an observation of the entitled meltdown from some unfunny celebs.
 
MCFC1993 said:
Everyone with over a million followers has been given their blue tick back.

Musk/Twitter had no choice, interactions and people using the platform significantly decreased in that one day.

I do think the blue tick helps to identify legitimate people on the platform easier, take Akanji's emoji tweet the other night, people weren't sure it was him. As long as people who pay for it can't imitate them.
Click to expand...

Not even given "back" - just given to them, according to Dara O'Briain,
 
MCFC1993 said:
Everyone with over a million followers has been given their blue tick back.

Musk/Twitter had no choice, interactions and people using the platform significantly decreased in that one day.

I do think the blue tick helps to identify legitimate people on the platform easier, take Akanji's emoji tweet the other night, people weren't sure it was him. As long as people who pay for it can't imitate them.
Click to expand...
The issue is that even in giving some ticks back, anyone can buy one. So the idea that you trust an account with a tick is diminishing. Over time twitter will be dramatically less trusted.

What Musk fails to grasp is it took a long time to build that user base and to pick out the key accounts and verify them. It cost money but was worth it for the legitimacy it gave the platform. He is trying to cash in on that for small beans. And once its gone its gone.
 
Embarrassing generation when some feel they need to get a blue tick on f*cking twitter, a cesspit of trolls and bots.

Fair enough for some celebs who make money out of it all.
 
BlueMoonday said:
Sorry but some "celebs" are not "content creators". They offer no value.

YT is a completely different platform where youtubers actually provide value, share knowledge and is a learning experience for the viewer. People on twitter plug their books, products and tweet (in lot of cases) unfunny drivel or rants.

My post was just an observation of the entitled meltdown from some unfunny celebs.
Click to expand...
Anyone with hundreds of thousands of followers who posts is, of course, a content creator by the very definition.
 
SWP's back said:
Anyone with hundreds of thousands of followers who posts is, of course, a content creator by the very definition.
Click to expand...
Go on the media thread, are you telling me some journos are "content creators" and other "influencers" given the tripe they come up with?

Anybody can obtain a blue tick, some think it means their opinion is of higher value than Joe Public's.
 
SWP's back said:
Yes. Of course. Have you banged your head?
Click to expand...
You've missed my point completely. Why do they then need to be verified gratis when the "content" they provide isn't factually correct? Twitter are providing a free service to admin their profiles whilst the "content" they often provide is BS. Those with a blue tick often think their opinion is above everybody else's, its battle over self importance in addition to safety and paying a sub which I know is irrelevant.

We agree on a lot of things on here, on this one we disagree. My original post was an observation of the egotistical meltdown by some media personalities which was quite amusing.
 
BlueMoonday said:
You've missed my point completely. Why do they then need to be verified gratis when the "content" they provide isn't factually correct? Twitter are providing a free service to admin their profiles whilst the "content" they often provide is BS. Those with a blue tick often think their opinion is above everybody else's, its battle over self importance in addition to safety and paying a sub which I know is irrelevant.

We agree on a lot of things on here, on this one we disagree. My original post was an observation of the egotistical meltdown by some media personalities which was quite amusing.
Click to expand...
Because being factually correct is neither here nor there for Twitter. Twitter makes its revenue by showing advertising to users on there. Those users are on there to read whatever tweets are posted by those that they follow.

If you are Joe Bloggs with 50 followers, you’re not helping Twitter make any money as no one is going on Twitter (and being shown those ads) to read your posts.

If you have 600,000 followers, your tweets are the content (be they good, bad or indifferent) that generates the ad revenue for Twitter. Exactly the same as YouTube (and not every big account on there is educational or truthful either - some of the most followed accounts are full of conspiracy theories and general bollocks) - but YouTube pays those creators per x-amount of views over a certain number.

The idea of a social media platform charging the very people that actually make it money is fucking stupid - as has been argued by minds far sharper than mine.

The whole purpose of the blue tick was so that you know the source you’re seeing post is that actual person or organisation. Now there are hundreds of people posing as people they’re not. And to what end? $20m per year in revenue for a company he paid paid $44bn for? It will only take 200 years to pay it off.
 
SWP's back said:
Because being factually correct is neither here nor there for Twitter. Twitter makes its revenue by showing advertising to users on there. Those users are on there to read whatever tweets are posted by those that they follow.

If you are Joe Bloggs with 50 followers, you’re not helping Twitter make any money as no one is going on Twitter (and being shown those ads) to read your posts.

If you have 600,000 followers, your tweets are the content (be they good, bad or indifferent) that generates the ad revenue for Twitter. Exactly the same as YouTube (and not every big account on there is educational or truthful either - some of the most followed accounts are full of conspiracy theories and general bollocks) - but YouTube pays those creators per x-amount of views over a certain number.

The idea of a social media platform charging the very people that actually make it money is fucking stupid - as has been argued by minds far sharper than mine.

The whole purpose of the blue tick was so that you know the source you’re seeing post is that actual person or organisation. Now there are hundreds of people posing as people they’re not. And to what end? $20m per year in revenue for a company he paid paid $44bn for? It will only take 200 years to pay it off.
Click to expand...
2,200 years :)
 
I agree that notable users (especially existing media personalities/footballers/comedians/actors) with a large following attracting millions of views are fundamental to twitter's ad revenue.

I would argue that there are some folk on there who you would never have heard of if it wasn't for Twitter. The platform has opened up opportunities for these personalities, it's provided a large audience free of charge which has helped lead to employment with notable broadcasters and publishers. To then cry arse about losing a blue tick or paying a sub can be seen as petulant to some people.

Weird comparison but in other tech industries, if I'm a sole trader or work for a business where I want to sell a tangible product, I'm expected to pay for my product to be sold or listed on a platform (eg Amazon, Ebay, Etsy). In return, I've been given the exposure to a large customer base which could increase my sales and generate revnue. Is this model far different from a content creator paying a small fee to deliver their content to a large audience which would indirectly generate income / create opportunities?

The subscription sounds completely futile given the revenue it would attract. I'm not sticking up for Musk, I just think the attitude from SOME personalities has been quite self entitled.

These are all fairly new industries, is there a right/correct procedure of how content creators are managed? I don't know enough about SM platforms to comment. Appreciate YT adopts a different approach paying YTers wich attract a large volume views and subscribers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top