Sociopath Community

The only thing that changed, was how the rule is enforced. Before it would issue warnings.

If people are going to pay a fee for verification, then it has to have strict enforcement. If not then the emotionally immature will ruin the platform. 

As usual, when purging demons, there's going to be kicking and screaming and vulgar behavior. Some people are ugly on the inside. It's all for degeneracy 

No more government or hidden agendas telling Twitter what to do or censoring someone because of disagreement. 

Also. Twitter's usage is at an all time high. Not to provoke your programming Lena.

Turncoat said: 

Tryptamine said: 

Turncoat said: 

Tryptamine said: 

Turncoat said: 

Tryptamine said: 

Turncoat said: 

Hawk said: 

The checkmark is obtainable when proof is supplied, that won't change.

It costs $8 a month, for nothing. 

it boosts you on the algorithm in replies and shit. you can argue that the checkmark system before was good, but i would be against you on that. $8 a month for more engagement isn't a big deal, and it's being adjusted by the value of currency in your country

Like Critical was going on about, it's a system that tells people the $8 spender is more legitimate. In his case he has no plan over buying the checkmark, so he suspects scammers will be able to use his name as if they were him over their willingness to pay money he otherwise is not. 

It doesn't even get rid of ads, it halves them. 

because it was such a meritocracy before, right?

Scams are scams, not sure what it being sensational or not has to do with anything. 

because it's not a scam, it's a business and businesses need to make money. the dude just spent a ton of money buying the shit. you just don't like the new terms of what makes people "relevant"

When they take a prior model and add a price tag that not only gives you less than what was once there, but the ones who don't pay this fee are pushed to the bottom (and still get ads, whew)? If not for the prior population on the website being a factor he'd almost be better off making a new site entirely. 

It's a downgrade, and pretty scammy. Where before they'd need to pay for bot-views and stuff now they can just pay $8 while normal users are shadowbanned to the bottom. The platform was meant to be freeform, adding a pay incentive entirely changes the model and perceived availability, which are factors for participation. Having it be a free board to post is what draws in more people, which in time increases participation as we've seen on other sites like Youtube, and with pay to play versus free games, as ease of use and having a high population of users is itself one of the bigger draws for most websites over it's believed correlation towards overall success and longevity. Like Fall Guys, trying to turn a profit after the fact while taking away features they grew used to over a period of years will not only push a large group away, but will insult those who grew used to the better version. 

His idea is that bots won't pay the fee and that real people will feel like their accounts mean something if "the price of a Starbucks Latte" is the monthly fee, which is very disconnected, like why not get an MMO subscription at that point and then go back to Facebook and Discord where it's free, if not go to a newly founded platform that keeps it free? The guy thinks that the average user will pay the fee rather than just rich or important people, and the people he fired were specifically focused on how bots work, too, so...

??? if you're finding your twitter content mainly through the algorithm, you're a noob who searches for random people's input in search as opposed to following a set of people with useful input and then networking off them. who's exposure are you starting to miss out on here exactly lol

Turncoat said: 

Tryptamine said: 

if you've used twitter for any amount of time you'd know that the platform was never about free speech

Elon outright claimed it was about free speech though, that was his platform while buying it. Then he removed the R, making it go from Free to Fee by prioritizing people who'd throw money at it. 

what i am indicating there is that the situation before was just of people getting verified and elevated within the algorithm according to who twitter deemed necessary. they had some pretty close-minded views, even banning a current US president

but if you make 1 edgy joke you get banned and had to keep re-making accounts. now to get a check you pay 8 dollars instead of being arbitrarily judged by staff and you're mad? massive cope

At this point what will protect the website overtime is it's decrease in popularity more than anything, I'd take the risk of bans over destroying the platform with bad ideas. 

you're hyped up politically if you think it had better ideas and conversation when people got banned more

Tryptamine said: 

Turncoat said: 

Tryptamine said: 

if you've used twitter for any amount of time you'd know that the platform was never about free speech

Elon outright claimed it was about free speech though, that was his platform while buying it. Then he removed the R, making it go from Free to Fee by prioritizing people who'd throw money at it. 

what i am indicating there is that the situation before was just of people getting verified and elevated within the algorithm according to who twitter deemed necessary. they had some pretty close-minded views, even banning a current US president

It only started becoming that way in recent years, which was bad, but I don't see this as an improvement. 

They shouldn't have been deplatformed, and with them being able to come back the platform shouldn't become worse. It's like being allowed to return only once the place became shitty enough, and I don't see how he'll keep up with the site as more companies back out of the project. 

Elon is straight up begging the people he fired to come back, dude's a child. 

but if you make 1 edgy joke you get banned and had to keep re-making accounts. now to get a check you pay 8 dollars instead of being arbitrarily judged by staff and you're mad? massive cope

At this point what will protect the website overtime is it's decrease in popularity more than anything, I'd take the risk of bans over destroying the platform with bad ideas. 

you're hyped up politically if you think it had better ideas and conversation when people got banned more

It's less so politics and moreso corporate, it takes sailors and a ship to sail, you can't do it with just one or the other. He could unban these people and still have a platform, but he is instead implementing really poorly thought out ideas (like he usually does). 

If they bust up the ship in the name of higher thinking, the ship will still sink. As it was before it was at least a ship that was functional with enough of a crew to man it (and a bunch of bots to play the part of ship rats). Unbanning people doesn't mean shit if the platform soon after dies, they'll just go back to Bitchute anyway if they are above the popularity tier that has people noticed. 

Tryptamine said: 

Turncoat said: 

Tryptamine said: 

Turncoat said: 

Tryptamine said: 

Turncoat said: 

Tryptamine said: 

Turncoat said: 

Hawk said: 

The checkmark is obtainable when proof is supplied, that won't change.

It costs $8 a month, for nothing. 

it boosts you on the algorithm in replies and shit. you can argue that the checkmark system before was good, but i would be against you on that. $8 a month for more engagement isn't a big deal, and it's being adjusted by the value of currency in your country

Like Critical was going on about, it's a system that tells people the $8 spender is more legitimate. In his case he has no plan over buying the checkmark, so he suspects scammers will be able to use his name as if they were him over their willingness to pay money he otherwise is not. 

It doesn't even get rid of ads, it halves them. 

because it was such a meritocracy before, right?

Scams are scams, not sure what it being sensational or not has to do with anything. 

because it's not a scam, it's a business and businesses need to make money. the dude just spent a ton of money buying the shit. you just don't like the new terms of what makes people "relevant"

When they take a prior model and add a price tag that not only gives you less than what was once there, but the ones who don't pay this fee are pushed to the bottom (and still get ads, whew)? If not for the prior population on the website being a factor he'd almost be better off making a new site entirely. 

It's a downgrade, and pretty scammy. Where before they'd need to pay for bot-views and stuff now they can just pay $8 while normal users are shadowbanned to the bottom. The platform was meant to be freeform, adding a pay incentive entirely changes the model and perceived availability, which are factors for participation. Having it be a free board to post is what draws in more people, which in time increases participation as we've seen on other sites like Youtube, and with pay to play versus free games, as ease of use and having a high population of users is itself one of the bigger draws for most websites over it's believed correlation towards overall success and longevity. Like Fall Guys, trying to turn a profit after the fact while taking away features they grew used to over a period of years will not only push a large group away, but will insult those who grew used to the better version. 

His idea is that bots won't pay the fee and that real people will feel like their accounts mean something if "the price of a Starbucks Latte" is the monthly fee, which is very disconnected, like why not get an MMO subscription at that point and then go back to Facebook and Discord where it's free, if not go to a newly founded platform that keeps it free? The guy thinks that the average user will pay the fee rather than just rich or important people, and the people he fired were specifically focused on how bots work, too, so...

??? if you're finding your twitter content mainly through the algorithm, you're a noob who searches for random people's input in search as opposed to following a set of people with useful input and then networking off them. who's exposure are you starting to miss out on here exactly lol

Did you even read it? 

I follow people on the platform and don't enjoy them being deplatformed, but that doesn't change that his ideas are bad. I think you're the one turning this political, not me. 

Maninist said: 

If people are going to pay a fee for verification, then it has to have strict enforcement. If not then the emotionally immature will ruin the platform. 

There is value in a platform that you can just sign up for and immediately start posting on, what we see here is him trying to further corporatize the medium and it's weird to see people sucking Elon's dick as he sells it out further. 

The fact that it was built around being free is a lot of it's initial draw, and it should be Twitter's responsibility to find how to thrive off of a free userbase like many, many other companies have successfully done. 

Maninist said: 

If people are going to pay a fee for verification, then it has to have strict enforcement. If not then the emotionally immature will ruin the platform. 

There is value in a platform that you can just sign up for and immediately start posting on, what we see here is him trying to further corporatize the medium and it's weird to see people sucking Elon's dick as he sells it out further. 

The fact that it was built around being free is a lot of it's initial draw, and it should be Twitter's responsibility to find how to thrive off of a free userbase like many, many other companies have successfully done. When you take a freeform model and add paywalls and extra steps to it it wrecks the vibe, which is itself something a website or game or any medium based around it's userbase that succeed try to cultivate before being bought out by money-scheme parasites ala Fall Guys through Epic Games.

I have no sympathy for the spoiled. People are self destructing over Elon. Funny enough, the ones losing their shit happen to be those who distant themselves from God.

Maninist said: 

I have no sympathy for the spoiled. People are self destructing over Elon. Funny enough, the ones losing their shit happen to be those who distant themselves from God.

What makes them spoiled, rather than consumers? They signed up for a website that promised one thing, now it's promising something else. 

In marketing that tends to lend to people moving onto something closer to what they grew accustomed to, as at this point even Facebook is becoming the better option. 

Turncoat said: 

Maninist said: 

If people are going to pay a fee for verification, then it has to have strict enforcement. If not then the emotionally immature will ruin the platform. 

There is value in a platform that you can just sign up for and immediately start posting on, what we see here is him trying to further corporatize the medium and it's weird to see people sucking Elon's dick as he sells it out further. 

Twitter remains free for the majority, including yourself.

The same people crying about the $8 checkmark, are the same people who applaud companies for pulling ads.

At the moment Twitter is losing $4,000,000 a day.

Any ass can afford $8 a month, and those who are verified are rich.

The fact that it was built around being free is a lot of it's initial draw, and it should be Twitter's responsibility to find how to thrive off of a free userbase like many, many other companies have successfully done. 

 Well damn. I never gave any money to Twitter and nothing is going to change. It's  still free to use

You do not have a verified twitter handle, you can still use it for free, you're literally being a tool.

Where's your brain ?