• Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    11 months 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
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months 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
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months 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
      3
      ·
      11 months 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.

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

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