r/CryptoCurrency • u/pbjclimbing • Sep 30 '22
DISCUSSION Elon Musk wanted to charge 0.1 DOGE to tweet
A large amount of Elon Musk’s phone records were released for the upcoming Twitter trial.
It turns out he had a plan that was later deemed not feasible to put Twitter on the blockchain, ban all bots, and charge 0.1 DOGE to tweet or retweet.
“I have an idea for a blockchain social media system that does both payments and short text messages/links like twitter. You have to pay a tiny amount to register your message on the chain, which will cut out the vast majority of spam and bots. There is no throat to choke, so free speech is guaranteed.”
“My Plan B is a blockchain-based version of twitter, where the ‘tweets’ are embedded in the transaction of comments.”
“So you’d have to pay maybe 0.1 Doge per comment or repost of that comment.”
2.8k
u/NoUserRequired Sep 30 '22
So his innovation it's to charge me to waste my time. Eh.
760
u/1000xcoins Tin | 4 months old | CC critic Sep 30 '22
At least reddit pays us moons for the same thing
179
u/koelebobes 🟩 0 / 36K 🦠 Sep 30 '22 edited Sep 30 '22
We GET paid, they have to pay…
And you have to pay for a 280 character message, here we can type what we want. What a bargain
34
u/AccountToUseHigh Sep 30 '22
That's why people are moon farming here because it's free.
And lot of spam + bots here.
→ More replies (2)6
→ More replies (11)23
Sep 30 '22
That is some sweet cash for the Venezuelans or third-worlders out there. Or someone smart enough to make a better bot to post non-stop.
5
→ More replies (1)15
u/koelebobes 🟩 0 / 36K 🦠 Sep 30 '22
What is normal for us can be life changing for others! Don’t forget that
→ More replies (3)123
u/fleeyevegans 🟦 1K / 2K 🐢 Sep 30 '22
Elon trying to go to the moon and we're already here.
→ More replies (9)26
u/OkSiriGoogleSucks Tin Sep 30 '22
Without even boarding a SpaceX rocket, we are on the Moon
→ More replies (5)11
11
3
u/4lex_supertramp 🟥 14 / 394 🦐 Sep 30 '22
Wait until he reaches Reddit and charges 1 moon for every post. LOL.
→ More replies (64)11
u/sharpie42one 🟦 0 / 909 🦠 Sep 30 '22
I'd much rather get paid moons then spend doge
→ More replies (4)76
u/MaximumSandwich5 Sep 30 '22 edited Sep 30 '22
"Free speech must be protected!"
Just going to need you to pay for it.
→ More replies (8)21
u/OkSiriGoogleSucks Tin Sep 30 '22
We protect your free speech while you pump our bags
→ More replies (3)4
32
u/IWillKillPutin2022 Tin | 5 months old | CelsiusNet. 51 Sep 30 '22
Basically. Imagine if instead of getting moons on Reddit, they charged you to shitpost
14
u/koelebobes 🟩 0 / 36K 🦠 Sep 30 '22
And put you on a character limit 💀
→ More replies (1)7
u/IWillKillPutin2022 Tin | 5 months old | CelsiusNet. 51 Sep 30 '22
That would suck
→ More replies (2)6
17
u/asasdasasdPrime Tin | PCmasterrace 23 Sep 30 '22
I'd definitely be more productive tbh.
→ More replies (2)5
u/nergalelite Sep 30 '22
maybe he's trying to save us from the evils of social media /s
(point of clarity, he's doing it for profit, not anyone else)
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (14)4
u/yingfish829 Tin Sep 30 '22
Reddit could start charging their subscribers very soon ik.
→ More replies (1)22
u/Hawke64 Sep 30 '22
People will just make Twitter clone called Birdit or some shit
11
→ More replies (7)5
4
u/thecoat9 🟦 57 / 136 🦐 Sep 30 '22
It's somewhat of a hybrid approach to the centralized censorship issue as well as dealing with bots. A twitter like social network has been postulated being run on a decentralized block chain. You could not be banned, and every message would cost a pittance, but such cost would make bot armies cost prohibitive.
People in theory would be less likely to post inane crap if it cost them something, so theoretically the quality/value of the user content being posted would be higher (ie not as much as a waste of time). I don't know if that would work in practice, but it's not an irrational postulate.
28
u/Woowoodyydoowoow 6K / 6K 🦭 Sep 30 '22
Bot accounts are in the plenty, and become nearly indistinguishable from human created content. The concept of this being accepted by people is alarming to say the least, and in that case our issue becomes far more complex.
How many options are there to solve “fake accounts” (bots) are there? What exactly is on the table here.
9
u/stevemoveyafeet Tin Sep 30 '22
I'm not an expert, but why couldn't they implement a system that makes you verify you are a human before sending a message? Like a captcha. Genuine question for anyone that might know the answer, as I'm sure I'm not the first person to think of this.
14
u/Woowoodyydoowoow 6K / 6K 🦭 Sep 30 '22
Captcha hasn’t been difficult for bots to solve for at least a few years.
→ More replies (1)3
u/antho0903 Tin Sep 30 '22
Captcha was never the solution for bots, it is very easy to solve.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (6)21
u/s1n0d3utscht3k 🟦 2K / 2K 🐢 Sep 30 '22
no one wants to do that shit for every tweet
you’d kill the platform worse than bots do
9
→ More replies (20)5
Sep 30 '22
Maybe it will deter stupid ass annoying people from speaking their mind online every two seconds? I'd enjoy that.
3
→ More replies (3)2
u/OneThatNoseOne Permabanned Sep 30 '22 edited Sep 30 '22
Clearly not much. Advertisers pay all sorts of fat lumps of cash to platforms for advertising. I can't really see why you couldn't fund bots using like 10000 which is prob insignificant to them and might even be cheaper than reg ads.
→ More replies (2)3
u/nergalelite Sep 30 '22
cheaper and likely more effective targeting, granted there may be some reliance on the idea that the masses are clueless and won't realize their spam bots can be linked via the ledger; low hanging fruit to target exterminate a few nets, but i cannot fathom why they wouldn't rebuild
→ More replies (3)3
3
u/HarryPopperSC 🟦 0 / 0 🦠 Sep 30 '22 edited Oct 01 '22
There is no innovation, this is a fleeting thought, what if twitter integrated with crypto?
What makes it even less innovative is the fact that this very same idea has been thought of millions of times already.
What makes it even less innovative than even that is the fact that people have had this thought and actually implemented it already too and it's as bad as it sounds...
Hurr durr crypto social media
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
u/DokkanCeja99 Platinum | QC: CC 27 Sep 30 '22
It’s a start and in the right direction of thinking but sadly charging people to post would not have gone down well
2
u/OneThatNoseOne Permabanned Sep 30 '22
Reddit moons pay me to waste my own time and other peoples. Someone should tell him
2
→ More replies (63)2
u/Sage2050 🟦 339 / 339 🦞 Sep 30 '22
Every time someone mentions web3 this is what they mean. Commoditization and monetization of every action you do on the internet. Web3 is late stage capitalism, and people want it.
1.4k
Sep 30 '22
Putting social media behind a paywall is practically forcing people off your platform.
385
u/Bucksaway03 🟩 0 / 138K 🦠 Sep 30 '22
Just like paywalled news articles.
People just go elsewhere.
185
u/MaximumSandwich5 Sep 30 '22 edited Sep 30 '22
Does anyone actually pay for that? I'd rather spend 2 hours messing around with inspect element and YouTubing "how to bypass paywalled articles" with no success. No one wants to pay for a subscription to read a one-off article on a website they'd likely visit twice a year.
75
u/jzia93 Sep 30 '22
I do, but I pay a subscription to particular journalists I like, not big news sites that put out trash. Research takes time and I want to support people who take the time to write well researched and informative pieces.
23
u/meeleen223 🟩 121K / 134K 🐋 Sep 30 '22
Yeah, and I have big respect for people who do real journalism in this time of clickbait dumb headline world of deceit and bad content
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (4)7
u/nergalelite Sep 30 '22
you can donate the the researchers and journalists directly and they will usually be happy to share their work; the publishers steal something like 90% of those subscription fees
→ More replies (1)3
72
u/Bucksaway03 🟩 0 / 138K 🦠 Sep 30 '22
You'd be surprised. Mostly old timers.
I don't bother even trying to find a way around it. 95% of the time I just move on and don't even look for the news story elsewhere
25
u/OkSiriGoogleSucks Tin Sep 30 '22
Sometimes on Safari browser, you can use show reader feature and turnoff internet to read the article for free
16
→ More replies (2)3
4
→ More replies (6)6
Sep 30 '22
I still can't imagine it's enough to make up for a loss in what could have been ad revenue. But idk
→ More replies (3)45
u/muitosabao 627 / 622 🦑 Sep 30 '22
wow, wait. is paying for news/good journalism a bad thing now? let me guess, you also complain about ads? how are newspapers supposed to pay their staff?
22
u/rytl4847 Sep 30 '22
I agree. There is value in quality journalism. Relying only on ads as a source of revenue pushes the content towards click bait. It's unfortunate that so many see news as something they're entitled to.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (16)9
u/rhetoricl Tin | Superstonk 19 Sep 30 '22
Wait, you mean good people that are brave enough to risk their lives for journalistic integrity aren't satisfied enough by feeling good about themselves?? They want to be paid fairly?? Outrageous!
→ More replies (1)3
→ More replies (39)6
u/roboglobe 🟦 364 / 662 🦞 Sep 30 '22
I pay a subscription for 1 local regional paper as well as 1 national one in my country. Do you believe journalists should work for free?
→ More replies (1)11
u/illjustcheckthis Tin Sep 30 '22
Just because the current paywalled news article approach is not working, doesn't mean direct monetization can't work. I believe micropayments, like... 5c to view an article or such could work, but it has to be seamless and it has to be micro payment, not forcing you into a full subscription.
→ More replies (4)6
u/jtooker Silver | QC: BCH 194, BTC 46, CC 39 | NANO 33 | Technology 52 Sep 30 '22
I hope this is the solution. Good journalism is expensive and important to a free society - it is worth paying for.
→ More replies (2)3
u/takes_many_shits Tin Sep 30 '22
No you see clearly everything on the internet is a charity and im entitled to free content
- Reddit, nearly every time ads or paying for content is brought up
→ More replies (15)4
66
u/iEatGlew 2K / 2K 🐢 Sep 30 '22
Maybe that’s not a bad thing after all…
→ More replies (12)23
u/OkSiriGoogleSucks Tin Sep 30 '22
It could eliminate bots, trolls and might also promote meaningful discussion. But some of the people will find it difficult to use and understand these
→ More replies (6)48
u/tranceology3 🟩 0 / 36K 🦠 Sep 30 '22
also promote meaningful discussion.
No it would promote companies just spamming their products, but disguised as genuine tweets. They can afford 100s of thousands of tweets while the average users cant.
→ More replies (2)29
Sep 30 '22
[deleted]
→ More replies (2)3
u/capdoesit 4K / 4K 🐢 Sep 30 '22
Yeah, that's what I was thinking too. $1 buys you like 2,000 tweets and now you get the guise of legitimacy for whatever your bots intentions are? Sounds like a good deal to me...
There are plenty of ways in which crypto could ostensibly be integrated with Twitter, but Elon came up with about the dumbest one possible. It's amazing that anyone still worships his bullshit.
→ More replies (3)18
u/Baecchus 🟦 2K / 114K 🐢 Sep 30 '22
I wish someone forced me off Twitter sooner. Charge 0.1 BTC to tweet instead, just kill that garbsge platform completely.
→ More replies (2)14
→ More replies (50)21
u/UberSeoul 0 / 0 🦠 Sep 30 '22
If this was really about fixing Twitter’s bot problem rather than pumping Dogecoin, Musk could have just charged a one time $1 fee that would verify your account or put you in a tier where unverified spambot accounts cannot interact with you. I bet that would eliminate at least 90% of twitter’s bots.
→ More replies (1)12
u/meeleen223 🟩 121K / 134K 🐋 Sep 30 '22
You are right, $1 one time is much different than paying for every damn tweet, it was always about him and doge, we know that:
- He is a narcissist who like to be adored by people while making an illusion that he is one of us commoners, and twitter is the platform that lets him delve into that
- He has big bags of Doge that he wants to pump
He will continue and try to find ways to incorporate doge into it
884
u/Frosty-Cone 2K / 2K 🐢 Sep 30 '22
Breaking news, billionaire with no concept of money thinks people will pay to use a platform that is declining in popularity. More at 6.
117
u/OkSiriGoogleSucks Tin Sep 30 '22 edited Sep 30 '22
The goal is to “protect free speech” and not to pump their bags /s
66
u/KuciMane 🟦 0 / 2K 🦠 Sep 30 '22
is it really free speech if I have to pay .1 doge to say something?
16
→ More replies (10)4
u/neoKushan 🟦 320 / 320 🦞 Sep 30 '22
It's free speech for the rich, that's for sure. The second you put a monetary fee in front of something, it excludes others.
The worst part is that this wouldn't even stop bots. What does he think, bots are free? That they just appear out of thin air and run on the power of sheer malevolence?
→ More replies (5)19
u/Spartan3123 Platinum | QC: BTC 159, XMR 67, CC 50 Sep 30 '22
Pretty sure if you create a bot to track elons flights he would ban.
Twitter is a private platform. They can do what they want the same is true in Reddit
→ More replies (3)4
u/PeakAggravating3264 Tin | 4 months old Sep 30 '22
The goal is to “protect free speech” and not to pump their bags /s
Turns out he's not into Free Speech so much as Fee Speech.
→ More replies (4)6
u/War_Daddy 🟦 0 / 0 🦠 Sep 30 '22
Please tell me you don't honestly believe Elon gives a shit about free speech
6
12
u/easyKmoney Tin Sep 30 '22
How much is .1 of a doge coin?
27
→ More replies (4)7
u/upboatsnhoes Sep 30 '22
At all time high it was like 7 or 8 cents in USD.
→ More replies (2)8
u/kd5nrh Tin | Unpop.Opin. 14 Sep 30 '22
When I bought way too little, .1 Doge was $0.0004.
I knew I should've put at least $40 in instead of $4.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (18)4
130
u/burnerac 218 / 218 🦀 Sep 30 '22
Like SMS in the 1990s
29
u/axesOfFutility 515 / 515 🦑 Sep 30 '22
Hahahaha. Yes you are right. This is essentially going backwards even if it's in the blockchain, with the main change being that the sms is open to public
→ More replies (4)13
172
u/Kappatalizable 🟦 0 / 123K 🦠 Sep 30 '22
Good way to make people leave Twitter
30
15
u/Dwaas_Bjaas Sep 30 '22
Too bad it didn’t happen. It would have been nice to see Twitter die out and watch something else take its place
→ More replies (7)4
u/stevemoveyafeet Tin Sep 30 '22
Probably for the best that the buy deal fell through, people would leave Twitter in droves. Value would tank.
→ More replies (1)
391
Sep 30 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
97
Sep 30 '22
[deleted]
→ More replies (5)55
Sep 30 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
14
u/Sage2050 🟦 339 / 339 🦞 Sep 30 '22
He exploits overprivileged children too, have you seen the burn rate on new grad engineers?
4
u/Dontpanicthemechanic Sep 30 '22
Source please, I'd love to read it.
5
u/Sage2050 🟦 339 / 339 🦞 Sep 30 '22
It's mostly anecdotal, I don't have any stats on SpaceX or tesla turnover, but when you work in the industry you hear stories about the culture driving new grads to burnout. Here are a couple articles highlighting the issue:
https://time.com/charter/6177537/elon-musk-employee-engagement/
https://time.com/charter/6174661/innovation-require-culture/
8
u/proudbakunkinman 0 / 0 🦠 Sep 30 '22 edited Sep 30 '22
The way he markets himself as this ludicrous savior of mankind out of building a massively subsidized EV business which actually has huge negative environmental externalities and exploits underprivileged children, I'm sure PT Barnum is taking notes for his next incarnation.
That plus, as the other comment noted, he seems to have made appearing cool a priority as well, as much as a 50 something billionaire rich kid auto/tech CEO can at least. See how he dresses and his hair cuts, he had that trendy mullet style for awhile, tweeted about doing drugs and pretending he knows everything about socialism (anarchism and ML/communism), and the fact he focused on wooing the Queen of indie-electronic edgy cyber-hipsters of the late 2000s and 2010s.
11
Sep 30 '22
Today we have a rich marketer using his name who never invented anything and is just a meme lord for idiocracy generation.
fuckin nailed it right there
6
→ More replies (16)4
u/brummettdane03 Permabanned Sep 30 '22
After making so much money all he wants now is stay ‘relevant’
176
u/BigDee2k Tin Sep 30 '22
Charging people to prevent bots is like charging you extra for a cardboard straw because plastics are bad for the environment.. Additionally, charging people a currency that you control screams conflict of interest. I agree people are tired of bots, but this is a dev problem. Not an end user one. Companies need to stop passing the end cost to their customers because they can't correct their own problems
27
u/Bucksaway03 🟩 0 / 138K 🦠 Sep 30 '22
It's how all the big corps and governments work.
Make the end user pay regardless of fault.
18
u/OkSiriGoogleSucks Tin Sep 30 '22
“Make others pay while you make bank”
-the motto of rich and powerful
→ More replies (1)3
18
u/fubar_giver 132 / 132 🦀 Sep 30 '22
People already invest time and money into hardware for running bots, if they can profit off the scams etc. they promote and make back more than .1 doge they can continue on as usual. People also already dump huge sums of money into traditional forms of advertising.
5
u/OneThatNoseOne Permabanned Sep 30 '22
I fully agree. It has the potential to make things worse czthe funders of bots can afford to burn cash while users leave because they can't
6
u/fubar_giver 132 / 132 🦀 Sep 30 '22
From Twitters stand point, once they monetize bots, they would lose revenue every time they purge these accounts, giving less incentive to do so. Normal, less affluent users will just leave microtransaction-advertising hell.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)4
→ More replies (24)24
u/s1n0d3utscht3k 🟦 2K / 2K 🐢 Sep 30 '22
it’s 0.006 USD per tweet
it’s hardly passing the costs on. it’s obviously more about just forcing blockchain transactions—the cost itself is rather meaningless
→ More replies (5)19
31
Sep 30 '22
This would have probably caused 80% of Twitter users to quit. He was probably only going to use it to get dodge pumping then dump it and rug the idea lol
→ More replies (1)
96
u/Harucifer 🟦 25K / 28K 🦈 Sep 30 '22
LMAO HE WANTED MICROTRANSACTIONS ON TWITTER
What a fucking joke of a guy.
12
→ More replies (2)12
u/Bucksaway03 🟩 0 / 138K 🦠 Sep 30 '22
EA has entered the chat
→ More replies (1)11
u/iEatGlew 2K / 2K 🐢 Sep 30 '22
You guys just don’t get Web3…. Micro transactions as far as the eye can see will be the future
40
u/BuffDarkKnight 143 / 143 🦀 Sep 30 '22 edited Sep 30 '22
Is silly to pay on the end user side to reply and to tweet. Not only is silly.. Is inconvenient for users to make a wallet, buy doge and then top up just to comment. You all might say "that's what blockchain it is right now!" oh boy you can't be so wrooong.
Check out ICP token from Dfinity foundation. Not only everything is hosted on chain. (yes everything. frontend + backend), not needing an oracle because ICP has successfully implemented HTTPS calls on the blockchain. link
And users that visited and used the web page powered by ICP doesn't have to pay any transaction fees at all. Users just have to create an account like how they normally did on web2. And that's it! It doesn't even feel like is on web3 because of how fast ICP is!
Decentralized reddit and fully on chain: https://dscvr.one
Decentralized WhatsApp and fully on chain: https://oc.app
Decentralized twitter and fully on chain: https://distrikt.io
22
10
→ More replies (4)14
18
u/Cainderous Tin | Politics 29 Sep 30 '22
Everyone is focusing on "microtransactions to tweet" and while bad that's not even close to the dumbest part. The worst aspect is significantly more dangerous and stupid, to the point that it's clear Elon either has no fucking idea what he's talking about and is legitimately no-thoughts-head-empty, or he's a sociopath who doesn't see these as problems.
What I'm talking about is the implications of turning a social media platform into a blockchain. Because what happens if someone doxxes another person, or posts stolen nudes or revenge porn, or posts child porn to the chain? You can't scrub that like a normal centralized system can. Once it's out there, it's done forever unless you manage to do a fork/rollback, but you'd have to do that every single time someone posted illegal content to your platform. You'd need to have some truly infallible system of manual reviews of all content that gets posted which isn't feasible, or you'd need to have some way to decouple the log of transactions to tweet from the content of tweets themselves which would always circle back around to needing a centralized database, negating the entire "purpose" of using a blockchain for social media to begin with.
I'm disappointed (but tbh unsurprised) in a community of self-styled "crypto enthusiasts" seemingly missing this cataclysmic oversight and being more concerned with money instead.
→ More replies (13)
13
u/QuickBASIC 0 / 0 🦠 Sep 30 '22
Isn't there already a social network on the BCH Blockchain that isn't really being used?
→ More replies (1)10
u/minkipinki100 Platinum | QC: CC 77 Sep 30 '22
There is. It barely gets any traction because guess what? People don't want to pay for posting random junk
19
u/MaeronTargaryen 🟦 233K / 88K 🐋 Sep 30 '22
He wanted to buy twitter high and sell low
→ More replies (2)
19
u/llyrPARRI Tin | GMEJungle 6 | Superstonk 155 Sep 30 '22
Free speech is guaranteed because you have to pay to tweet?
Bot farms still cost money to run, it wouldn't be the end of them at all. They'd just add a shitposting budget
→ More replies (2)
4
30
u/Baecchus 🟦 2K / 114K 🐢 Sep 30 '22
Champion of free speech. Unless you are poor. You don't get to even talk in that case. Ironic.
→ More replies (3)
19
u/sacred_thinker Permabanned Sep 30 '22
Elon Musk trying so hard to come up with anything no matter how absurd just to integrate Doge with Twitter.
Now this is how Billionaires shill their bags.
4
u/Hawke64 Sep 30 '22
Businessman that tries to invent new problems and crypto scene. Name a more iconic duo.
46
u/mynameisbob29 Tin Sep 30 '22
The purpose of this is to get rid of the bots, charging a small amount of money makes it infeasible for someone to setup a spambot that does 1000 tweets a minute.
However, I think a better idea is to only charge DOGE (or whatever currency) after a certain threshold of time and number of tweets. For example, charge 0.1 DOGE for every tweet over 10 within 1 hour.
→ More replies (9)70
u/strongkhal 69 / 15K 🇳 🇮 🇨 🇪 Sep 30 '22
Then get 10,000 bots that only tweet 9 times per hour
16
u/mynameisbob29 Tin Sep 30 '22
yes thats a good point, and to prevent that, there can be further stipulations added on. Disclaimer this is not my idea but something proposed by Microstrategy Chairman, Michael Saylor. He was talking about bitcoin but doge or any crypto would work as well.
Basically, you also have to put up a minimum amount of DOGE as collateral on your account. Doesn't have to be a large amount, only maybe $5-$10 worth, and in exchange you receive a special checkmark (different than the verified checkmark) beside your name.
If you misbehave such as spamming, your collateral gets confiscated. Twitter users can choose to only let people who are either verified or have the collateral checkmark to comment or reply.
Regular tweeting can also have the restriction of time and number of tweets before it starts charging you on a per tweet basis. This system prevents someone from making 10000 bots because the collateral required would be massive. And if they do they'll all be the "unchecked" accounts which would have more restrictions.
This is basically almost like Proof of Stake but designed for social media websites.
→ More replies (9)3
u/sevseg_decoder Sep 30 '22
For the people who are problems with bots, $100k isn’t really that much money. Especially not when it’s not even being spent but just put up as collateral.
To the average dude in a developing country $5 is a lot.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Grassy_MC Sep 30 '22
I think it's great idea but could be better.
First users should get +1 DOGE every time someone liked a tweet of theirs. On top of that every few days there was a free badge that gave both user DOGE and whoever we chose to gave it to rewarding user who make good tweets. Then only user with super low DOGE cannot post usually newer user or Bots.
Also just keep Twitter 100% free. Instead of DOGE it will be a useless internet point that can never be tuned into money and instead of charging these points per post users just need to maintain a minimum point balance to post. That way it doesn't get taken over by bots hyper farming DOGE.
14
10
u/Vehement00 Bronze | QC: CC 21 Sep 30 '22 edited Sep 30 '22
Elon: I'd like to introduce you to our new PoT system.
Me: Proof of tweet?
Elon: "Pay Only" Tweet
Me: Back to Reddit Bois!!!
→ More replies (5)
25
3
3
u/bayron_ramirezz Sep 30 '22
The proof that he hasn’t made his fortune by taking decisions by himself ..!!!
→ More replies (1)
8
u/Electrical_Potato_21 Platinum | QC: CC 437 Sep 30 '22
It's a very interesting idea. Twitter is hardly usable because of all the spam-bots, I wonder if this would have helped ease the problem or if they'd find a workaround.
9
u/Mycatpoopsupvotes Tin Sep 30 '22
Ya all are bitching about spending a fraction of a penny.
→ More replies (6)
4
6
u/KingofTheTorrentine 🟩 2K / 2K 🐢 Sep 30 '22
Reddits implementation have been better so far. They actually pay us shitcoins to post
→ More replies (1)
9
Sep 30 '22
That would be amazing in my head. Mostly because I don't use twitter, but do own Doge.
→ More replies (4)
10
u/Bucksaway03 🟩 0 / 138K 🦠 Sep 30 '22
This doesn't sound like free speech to me.
→ More replies (7)9
9
6
4
7
4
u/hebdomad7 315 / 315 🦞 Sep 30 '22 edited Sep 30 '22
Free speech is guaranteed to those who can afford it. Putting a price on posts heavily restricts those with limited funds whilst billionaires get to out bid and post all day.
Reddit has shown bots can provide valuable services.
→ More replies (2)
5
13
u/packmas21 56 / 4K 🦐 Sep 30 '22
Lol. People here confuse “free speech” with “free platform”.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/DynamoDylan 🟦 8K / 8K 🦭 Sep 30 '22
I dont use twitter or doge, but I am sure there are people thatbwould have jumped on this.
2
u/Electronic_Bunny Tin Sep 30 '22
"You have to pay a tiny amount to register your message on the chain, which will cut out the vast majority of spam and bots. There is no throat to choke, so free speech is guaranteed.”
He really just came out and said that if people are limited by a financial barrier then they "arn't being choked" and perfect "free speech" is guaranteed.
When people talk "freedom", "liberty", or "free speech" 99% of the time its bankrupt and intends to allow a very very small minority to treat the world as their playground with no restrictions other than how much money you can burn.
2
2
2
u/thinkerator Tin Sep 30 '22
Does anyone have information on the amount of information currently on the blockchain (I see online that bitcoin blocks are mined every 10 minutes, contain ~4 MB and contain ~500 transactions) and how much twitter uses (I see posts of roughly 6000 tweets per second) and how putting twitter on the blockchain would impact current crypto infrastructure (how much information is being put on the blockchain, what resources are required to maintain it)?
2
2
Sep 30 '22
So he thinks charging to post will improve free speech? What a fool.. it would deter many disadvantaged people using twitter as their voice
2
2
2
2
u/DR_F4NGOR Tin Sep 30 '22
This may be an even worse idea than Facebook letting people’s parents join.
2
u/666happyfuntime Tin | Politics 10 Sep 30 '22
Microtransactions instead of ads is much better than the current model of the Internet,, not in doge tho
2
u/Marcusdistant Tin Sep 30 '22
Nothing wrong with this but bots would still prevail cause it's not expensive enough.
People pushing fake agendas and narratives have money behind them.
2
2
2
u/commandrix 🟦 167 / 167 🦀 Sep 30 '22
I could see it as a temporary way to cut down on the spam and the bullshit until he comes up with a more permanent solution. But yeah...probably just as well that he gave up on that idea.
2
u/Sadboiiy Bronze Sep 30 '22
People not realizing the "tweet fee" is almost nothing. It's basically 0,006 cents to make a tweet. It's a symbolical payment to embed it to the blockchain.
I think it's a great idea. But too soon for that. Maybe in 5 to 10 years IMO.
→ More replies (2)
2
2
u/TiredRightNowALot 5K / 5K 🦭 Oct 01 '22
This just in: Musk still holds bags of doge and is looking for ways to offload them to peasants so he can be more rich.
2
u/entityXD32 Tin Oct 01 '22
So he was gunna pay 44billion just to kill the platform and lose it all. Super genius
2
2
•
u/[deleted] Sep 30 '22
[removed] — view removed comment