• Bappity@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    239
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    twitter blue subscribers can now hide the entire reason they spent money on it in the first place

      • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        55
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well that sounds terrible. At least with the blue logo you can just hide or block their posts to get to the organic engagement.

        • ZEEEPh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          ·
          1 year ago

          yeah, seems like now it will be very difficult to weed them out… just another reason to go away from twitter

      • GnuLinuxDude@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        well that explains why whenever i look at a tweet i have to scroll past all the top comments which are inevitably the stupidest ones

      • bitsplease@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Also it let’s Elon pretend that more people are subbed than really are. We know he likes to inflate the perception of whose willing to pay for it after he gave out a bunch of free checks to celebrities who refused to sign up

      • jtk@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh I see, the blue checks have become a direct competition to bot farms. I think I’d rather give the money to a bunch of soulless machines than a soulless human.

    • ScrotesforGoats@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      They’re probably tired of the harassment they’re getting for paying for it. A lot of the blue check tweets I’ve seen have a comment section mocking and berating them. I think it’s a shame they get to hide it. If they paid for it they should deal with the harassment that goes with it.

      • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        20
        ·
        1 year ago

        I personally think subscribtion model is better than ads so mocking these people seems kinda odd

        • disasterpiece@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I agree with this sentiment but I think the real issue with this change is that Twitter Blue subscribers get their content’s visibility boosted. Without the blue checkmark visible, it’s impossible to tell who had their content boosted through organic engagement, and who paid for it

          The Twitter Blue subscribers are not getting mocked for paying to remove ads. They are mocked for paying money to have their voices cary more weight. And they are paying that money to a company that as of late has supported CSAM, racism, and vaccine disinformation.

          • VaidenKelsier@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Right. And now, going into an election year where misinformation is growing in weight and volume, we will have no idea who’s artificially boosting their content.

            Also, it means that every single breaking news tweet, who are you going to see first? All the dick riders who paid for Blue, which slants a very particular demographic’s way.

            2024 is going to be a nightmare.

        • jtk@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Do blue checks not see ads? I agree, when a service is subscription/donation only, it’s way better. But if any part of the business model is ad based, it’s shit, and paying to hide them won’t make it any better.

            • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Well that’s incredibly stupid. Removing ads is usually the reason I’m paying for a service. Ironic that I as a non-paying user see less ads than the ones that are paying for it.

        • bmovement@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          What’s the difference between paying to get your tweets seen and paying to get your tweets seen?

  • foggy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    145
    ·
    1 year ago

    I fucking love how news outlets refuse to acknowledge the new name.

    I am all in on only referring to it as Twitter.

      • foggy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        48
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nah just disrespect the whole sham.

        Call it Twitter. Call them tweets.

        Nobody calls Facebook “Meta”.

        • Laticauda@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          People call the company that owns Facebook Meta all the time. Facebook is still called Facebook because they didn’t change Facebook to Meta, they changed The Facebook Company to Meta.

        • Marcy_Stella@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Technically Facebook is still called Facebook, it’s the parent company (IE who owns everything and who is listed on the stock market) that’s now named Meta. However it’s a similar situation to Google and the parent company Alphabet, No one calls google or google connected products Alphabet products because it’s not meant to be what you refer to it as.

    • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      1 year ago

      I would assume that’s because, at least partially, because there’s an abundance of addons which automatically block blue checks.

      • jonne@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        1 year ago

        It wouldn’t be so bad if they didn’t also give them more weight in the algorithm. Any time you load a thread with more than a few comments, there’s like 5 trolls on top with bullshit comments.

    • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      There are other reasons too.

      I’m not ashamed of being moderator on a online forum but I don’t want it to show next to my name when I’m not moderating.

      I’m also not ashamed that my truck is a 4x4 but I still don’t want the badge on my tailgate.

    • sijt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      But when you see a reply from a small account with few interactions high up under a popular post, you’re still going to know it’s a paying simp.

      It’s like putting a clown nose whilst wearing your nazi uniform. People can still see the uniform, but now they also think you’re a clown.

    • Got_Bent@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I was either on my last slide phone or my first smart phone when Twitter came out and Facebook was beginning it’s ascent to late 2000s domination.

      From the beginning, I thought the concept of effectively posting text messages on this new Twitter thing made no sense at all, so I never bothered making an account.

      However many years later, I’m super glad I thought Twitter v1.0 was so silly.

      • horseloaf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I was head of an IT department at the time and distinctly remember telling everyone in a team meeting that this “micro-blogging” was pointless, going nowhere and we should ignore it. Wrong!

        • WalrusDragonOnABike@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Think the only thing you were wrong about was “going nowhere”.
          Unfortunately a lot of people like doing pointless things that they should ignore.

  • Fedizen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    1 year ago

    They can’t even be proud of their decision to lick the boot. I’d call them worms but that would be an insult to the worms.

  • Kokesh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    1 year ago

    So… if you can’t see if someone is a “legit” (verified) account, why would you pay that fat f@ck for verifiXation?

    • ZagTheRaccoon@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      I assume twitter blue offers other perks, that people might want without the shame of it being publicly known.

        • Fisk400@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          By a vast margin. Replies are apparently unusable as a thing for communication because if you have a checkmark the algorithm ignores any other consideration.

        • Frodo@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          I thought that making blue check marks purchasable was one of the first things Musk did at Twitter after firing everyone.

          • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t know what it was called, but the purchasable blue check marks thing built off of an already existing service. It might have had a different name, I don’t remember.

    • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t quite see what your average Twitter user needs the information for about whose a paid member and whose not.

      • Cryptic Fawn@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I recall reading (forgot where) that someone with the Blue Check-mark has more “weight” when retweeting and responding to tweets. And that the Blue Checks can easily bury anyone without a Blue Check in Twitters algorithm. This was done intentionally by Elon to pressure people into paying.

        It’s why artists like Adam Ellis blocks anyone with the Blue Check; right-wingers hate him, and they can really fuck up his reach, so he just blocks anyone with the Blue Check-mark who replies/re-tweets his work so they can’t even interact with his tweets. And he isn’t the only artist that does this.

      • klyde@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean why would they hide it? The only people who bought it are twats who think they’re cool.

  • mec287@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    1 year ago

    All I ever see is a stream of stupidity from blue checkmarks. Let them wear that badge with shame.

  • Cryptic Fawn@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 year ago

    Bet Elon wanted this because people kept blocking anyone with the blue checkmark, and the people that paid for it kept crying about being blocked.