Technology

59666 readers

2672 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

174

Will you be willing to pay for using Twitter? (variety.com)

submitted 1 year ago by t4k3@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

189 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Elon Musk said he will charge all X/Twitter users a fee to be on the platform. He suggested that such a change would be necessary to deal with the problem of bots on the platform.

“It’s the only way I can think of to combat vast armies of bots," said Elon. I can’t believe that this is the only solution he can think of.

Dealing with bots would be Elon Musk’s responsibility, considering he’s the only one profiting significantly from X, not us. Elon Musk steals our data and censors each of our posts, now he even expects us to pay to clean up the mess he created.

Plus, the problems with X go beyond just bots. The algorithm and programming decisions are negatively impacting user experience and manipulating people’s minds.

We want a town square where everyone is free to have & voice an opinion. I do not believe we have to pay ”a small monthly payment” for such a place, especially in a country that should value these freedoms & suppressing ideas.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Meowoem@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No because it would exclude all the interesting people, I'd much rather donate to keep a door open for all.

[–] rglullis@communick.news 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

it would exclude all the interesting people

Are all "interesting people" so cash strapped that they wouldn't be able to afford a $10/year membership?

Anyway, what if I told you that my instance provides "group-based" billing? You could, e.g, get a 10-account package for $5/month and give access to 9 other people there.

I would still try to come up with some form of vouch or sponsorship-based system, where the paying members get to approve non-paying members if they have a backing sponsor.

donate to keep a door open for all.

Donation-based instances are not sustainable. You can see that already with Mastodon. They used to be able to get enough funds to even support upstream projects, now they are invite-only. Turns out that "keeping the door open for all" makes the operating costs rise faster than the revenue from donations.

[–] Meowoem@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Interesting people barely have time to pop onto Twitter every now and then, they're not going to bother if it costs money

And I guess we'll see which system ends up bearing fruit, I think we're already seeing the capitalist walled garden model falter, I suspect your more collectivist model won't have the momentum to replace it but while the commons might trip and start with a dozen different stumbles the sheer force of its ever growing ubiquity will carry it through.

Especially as hardware continues to get cheaper and software more efficient, hosting a few thousand users on a federated server is already fairly trivial, its only going to get easier the more hurdles are removed through innovation and tech creep.

[–] rglullis@communick.news 1 points 1 year ago

In terms of costs, the predominant factor is storage, which does not go away and is ever increasing. But anyway the problem of instances with thousands of users is not the cost of hardware, but the labor involved with moderation, security, support...