this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023
128 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37603 readers
628 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

archive.org

X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, will begin charging new users $1 a year to access key features including the ability to tweet, reply, quote, repost, like, bookmark, and create lists, according to a source familiar with the matter. This change will go live today for new users in New Zealand and the Philippines.

Roughly 20 minutes after this story published, X’s Support account confirmed the details, writing that “this new test was developed to bolster our already successful efforts to reduce spam, manipulation of our platform and bot activity, while balancing platform accessibility with the small fee amount. It is not a profit driver.”

Starting today, we're testing a new program (Not A Bot) in New Zealand and the Philippines. New, unverified accounts will be required to sign up for a $1 annual subscription to be able to post & interact with other posts. Within this test, existing users are not affected.

This new test was developed to bolster our already successful efforts to reduce spam, manipulation of our platform and bot activity, while balancing platform accessibility with the small fee amount. It is not a profit driver.

And so far, subscription options have proven to be the main solution that works at scale. — Support (@Support) October 17, 2023

The company published the “Not-a-Bot Terms and Conditions” today outlining its plan for a paid subscription service that gives users certain abilities on their platform, like posting content and interacting with other users. This program is different from X Premium, which offers more features like “Undo” and “Edit” for posts for $8 a month. Given the company’s tumultuous reputation under Musk, some users have voiced their hesitancy to turn over their credit card info.

X owner Elon Musk has long floated the idea of charging users $1 for the platform. During a livestreamed conversation with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu last month, Musk said “It’s the only way I can think of to combat vast armies of bots.”

Shortly after the announcement, Musk tweeted that you can “read for free, but $1/year to write.”

“It’s the only way to fight bots without blocking real users,” Musk wrote. “This won’t stop bots completely, but it will be 1000X harder to manipulate the platform.”

X CEO Linda Yaccarino was asked last month onstage at Vox’s Code Conference about how going to a full subscription model on X will affect revenue, something that is now going live to users today. Yaccarino answered at the time, “Did he say that or did he say he’s thinking about it?”

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] lvxferre@lemmy.ml 46 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

The very fact that you're requesting payment info already makes plenty people think twice. Specially in the light of the brand changing from Twitter to X - if you're clueless about the change something "smells off".

On the other hand for a lot of bot owners this is absolutely no issue. You shouldn't be popping up a whole bot army, but instead only a handful of well coordinated bots to astroturf the shit out of the platform.

In other words the idea might have the opposite effect - keeping potential new human users out, but allowing the bots in.

[–] tristan@aussie.zone 38 points 11 months ago

This is exactly right... A lot of bots already pay for blue since it promotes them and prevents them from getting blocked/muted so easily

$1/bot/yr will be nothing to bot farms

[–] arquebus_x@kbin.social 22 points 11 months ago (2 children)

In other words the idea might have the opposite effect - keeping potential new human users out, but allowing the bots in

The galaxy brain shit here is that I suspect the bot problem actually doesn't concern Musk in the way he claims. If he can make it seem like there are fewer bots (because of these policies) while at the same time not actually getting rid of them, the engagement level stays up and the advertisers are happy in their ignorance. Bots are better users: they're not fickle, they don't go to sleep, they can be reliably expected to be posting more regularly than normal users. The trick for Musk is convincing everyone they're gone.

[–] lvxferre@lemmy.ml 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

The further I think about this, the more that it makes sense. The $1/year would even help to sort in the "right" type of bot (that wouldn't be affected, unlike disruptive mass account creation), while still allowing them to claim that they're getting rid of bots.

[–] howrar@lemmy.ca 5 points 11 months ago

Bots don't click on ads and buy stuff though. I'm pretty sure anyone buying ads are going to be measuring this.

[–] ultratiem@lemmy.ca 4 points 11 months ago

Yeah his plan is to turn it into WeChat/QQ. Starting its payments because he’s gonna try to do PayPal again, this time his way. Nothing insidious or revolutionary.

[–] ptman@sopuli.xyz 35 points 11 months ago (4 children)

I can only approve of people paying for services they use. It isn't free to run. But there are several things to consider:

  • $1/year is very low, transaction fees for accepting that amount of money are high
  • It's a low price for successful bots
  • Doesn't remove ads (take money from subscribers or advertisers, not both, also print media)
  • Doesn't give you better control over your experience. The paying customer should be the one being listened to
  • This is Elon Musk's twitter we're talking about, how long until he changes his mind again?

Another surge on mastodon? Countries, cities, public organisations should put up their own mastodon like EU, BBC and Germany have.

[–] Case@lemmynsfw.com 13 points 11 months ago

I was more thinking it's to test the waters.

A buck is affordable to most everyone who has the means to access Twitter.

Of course next year it'll be Twitter++ subscriptions for 20 bucks a month, as they phase out the 1 dollar tier.

I never cared for Twitter, and watching Musk's spin on it has been hilarious as someone with a long history in corporate IT.

Pre-edit: At the moment I'm refusing to refer to it by a ~~tween edgelords name~~~ Musk's name for it.

[–] 7provincien@startrek.website 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Dutch government put up an instance as well; e.g. this is the handle of the agency for road and waterworks. @rijkswaterstaat@social.overheid.nl

[–] maynarkh@feddit.nl 4 points 11 months ago

There's a separate one for the city of Amsterdam as well

[–] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I can only approve of people paying for services they use. It isn't free to run. But there are several things to consider:

I don't mind paying for services, but I now have 20 different services. Each one is trying to extract the maximum amount of money out of me while giving me a minimum in return.

I also accept that those services are not free to run, but realistically, these companies aren't just trying to cover their operating costs, they're trying to further line the pockets of executives and shareholders.

And its never enough for them. I could give Twitter $100 a month and they'd still sell my data for a few extra pennies. I could give YouTube an unlimited supply of servers and bandwidth and they'd still show just as many ads.

We will never get the cost living under control until this corporate greed is addressed because no matter how much money we pay people, there's an army of psychopaths ready to milk them of every cent.

So fuck em. They can have an extra dollar when they can prove it will actually end up in the pocket of an employee. Otherwise, the richest man in the world can fund his own little reactionary pet project.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] admiralteal@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Doesn’t remove ads (take money from subscribers or advertisers, not both, also print media)

Tell that to all the advertorial content from e.g., the fossil fuel industry on The New York Times. Print news has been accepting money from advertisers while charging users since before internet ads were a thing. They just hide the ads in more insidious, corrupt ways.

[–] ptman@sopuli.xyz 2 points 11 months ago

My point exactly. Why do we get ads on something we pay for with money?

[–] Titan@beehaw.org 31 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The CEO learning this at the same time as we are

[–] ram@bookwormstory.social 17 points 11 months ago

That's legit probably what's happening though.

[–] Stillhart@lemm.ee 28 points 11 months ago

I mean I get what they're trying to do, but I feel like the people successfully making money with spam/bots will not really have a problem with that fee.

[–] PotjiePig@beehaw.org 24 points 11 months ago (2 children)

So an army of a thousand twitter bots will cost a thousand dollars a year? That seems shruggable.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 16 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Great! More will move to Mastodon.

[–] deczzz@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Probably not though. Common people don't understand Internet. Nor does politicians or journalists. What else is on Twitter? Advertisements?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Auzy@beehaw.org 15 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Can we stop posting about every crap decision X makes? We're just generating free publicity for it at the moment

It died months ago, and at this point, news outlets are the ones keeping it relevant.

[–] Send_me_nude_girls@feddit.de 12 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Soon Elon will pay users to keep using Twitter. Haha

[–] ExLisper@linux.community 10 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Ok, but how will this help them get more users? Because I can easily see how it will make them less users.

[–] RandoCalrandian@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Due to the low amount, I’d say this is more about combating botting atm

[–] maynarkh@feddit.nl 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Is botting the thing losing them money?

[–] dan@upvote.au 2 points 11 months ago

I think Elon is the thing that's losing them money

[–] StarServal@kbin.social 10 points 11 months ago (1 children)

There are still new users signing up for shitter?

[–] Titan@beehaw.org 2 points 11 months ago

Not anymore

[–] bl_r@beehaw.org 10 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

From any other company who runs a social media company with a spam problem, I’d say this is an interesting solution. You can identify some bots and sock-puppet accounts by PCI. For Musk’s twitter, I’m not exactly trusting it, it feels like enshittification is in full swing.

I wonder how this will affect diversity of opinion on twitter, since I feel those already critical of twitter won’t be as likely to spend a dollar

And I’m a little skeptical that this will dissuade botting, since 1$ is nothing

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

And I’m a little skeptical that this will dissuade botting, since 1$ is nothing

It depends how many bot-hours you need to earn a dollar back. That's prohibitive for a lot of dragnet-type internet activities, which run on tiny tiny fractions of a cent.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dark_stang@beehaw.org 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Most of that going to get eaten by transaction fees. Is Elon still involved in a transaction processor?

[–] itmightbethew@beehaw.org 12 points 11 months ago (1 children)

there's a conspiracy theory - use the fee as a way to normalize paying X for things and then pivot to paying through X for things until it's the fascist super app of elon's sweaty fever dreams.

[–] anothermember@beehaw.org 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I don't think that's even a conspiracy theory, I think it's obvious that's what they're doing.

Even for what they offer now; if you already have your payment details registered with "X", then it's a much easier decision to make about paying for a blue tick or editing rights or whatever else.

[–] Leafeytea@beehaw.org 2 points 11 months ago

Yep. Obviously he can go ahead and claim now whatever he wants about this move being all about combating bots but it seems fairly obvious to me that this is not about that. Getting access to registered users payment info is just one more way to loop people into their system and keep track of who.what.where type of users they have. Charges and platform uses for buying marketed products on the platform is just a hop ~~skip~~ click away at that point.

Bots meanwhile will continue to do what they always do; $1 a year to register in is nothing. They will also most likely be able to do this via a one time only use type credit card where user info is irrelevant.

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 11 months ago

reminder this is $1 philippines which is like $56 usd

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Honestly don’t think it’s an insane idea. Not sure how effective $1 would be against bots, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the idea makes sense: basic and low friction to deter a large amount of spam. Maybe it’s $5 a year or whatever.

Of course there’s an equity issue for those who can’t afford this, especially if it goes mainstream and every online thing requires similar and we get Netflix -> Cable all over again.

But here on the Fedi I can see the idea working if applied to some instances that have set up the governance (eg co-op) and services (committed moderators) for it to make sense.

I think it would be cool if being an admin and moderator could genuinely be a side hustle or more without sucking away at someone’s passion.

[–] itmightbethew@beehaw.org 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

i agree completely, and i've said it before, a small fee goes a long way to stopping spam and the bad kind of shitposting. It's barrier that a lot of actors, good and bad, can climb, but they'll be at least someone who can't or won't.

thing is, twitter has already eroded so much trust and relevance that i think for a lot of folks this might be the last straw. we'll see - much like the reddit rebellion it's hard to tell how many folks will actually quit from the noise alone.

For the fediverse i'm not certain at all. on the one hand many of us want the fediverse to grow and become more diverse. Fees are a barrier to entry. but i also agree, as you say, that mods and admins deserve something for their trouble - especially since their job is a lot harder on lemmy.

i hate to say, but maybe discord has it right? monetize cosmetics and stuff? i really don't know. Disclosure i am nitro subscriber, mostly for the emoji.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] megopie@beehaw.org 6 points 11 months ago
[–] Granite@kbin.social 4 points 11 months ago

How long until it rolls out to current users?

[–] shiveyarbles@beehaw.org 4 points 11 months ago

Musk the genius: we're losing boatloads of money, quick I need solutions!

Minion: ummm can we charge a fee?

[–] dan@upvote.au 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Interestingly WhatsApp also used to charge $1/year in some countries, before the Meta acquisition.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

🤖 I'm a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:

Click here to see the summaryX, the platform formerly known as Twitter, will begin charging new users $1 a year to access key features including the ability to tweet, reply, quote, repost, like, bookmark, and create list, according to a source familiar with the matter

X owner Elon Musk has long floated the idea of charging users $1 for the platform.

During a recent livestreamed conversation with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu last month, Musk said “It’s the only way I can think of to combat vast armies of bots.”

The company also published “Not-a-Bot Terms and Conditions” today outlining its plan for a paid subscription service that gives users certain abilities on their platform, like posting content and interacting with other users.

This story is developing.

Please check back later for updates.


Saved 0% of original text.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›