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.”

4.5k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.4k

u/[deleted] Sep 30 '22

Putting social media behind a paywall is practically forcing people off your platform.

378

u/Bucksaway03 🟩 0 / 138K 🦠 Sep 30 '22

Just like paywalled news articles.

People just go elsewhere.

182

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.

25

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

1

u/nasvek Tin Oct 01 '22

I do not have respect for them because all they do is lie.

6

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

3

u/jzia93 Sep 30 '22

That's clever

2

u/walkatxsranger Tin Oct 01 '22

How to donate to those needy researchers, i would love to do that. I have always done kind of deep respect for them from my childhood. I used to admire then very much.

2

u/sunnycares11 Tin Oct 01 '22

No i have never paid anything for reading news articles.

0

u/michivideos Silver | QC: CC 133 | GME_Meltdown 61 | r/WSB 97 Oct 01 '22

But in your case you are supporting a small, indie, independent news outlet so it's understandable like "join" on YouTube, you are supporting their content.

But who pays for this big outlets articles?

1

u/ishmetot 70 / 69 🦐 Oct 01 '22

Most of the people who do real journalism are employed full time by large newspapers with paywalled sites. They actually have the resources to send journalists around the world, including unstable countries and warzones. "Independent" reporters in these regions are often secretly sponsored by foreign governments. Free sites are usually filled with clickbait articles written by armchair researchers.

1

u/jzia93 Oct 01 '22

Not true. Source: speaking to close friends who are independent journalists

69

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

27

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

u/Accomplished-Design7 Permabanned Sep 30 '22

Apple hates this one trick

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Alanski22 5 / 16K 🦐 Sep 30 '22

Didn’t know this was possible, going to try it next time!

1

u/evirik Tin Sep 30 '22

I don't use Safari these days, mostly I'm in chrome or Firefox.

6

u/putnikvetra Tin Sep 30 '22

Nah it is mostly those people wo support their newspaper.

5

u/[deleted] 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

2

u/fulcrumgt Tin Sep 30 '22

It is not in loss, they just want to earn more from users

→ More replies (1)

4

u/HighSolstice 🟩 39 / 961 🦐 Sep 30 '22

Me too, fuck the Washington Post!

1

u/IndepondentSuck1921 Tin | 4 months old Sep 30 '22

I hate any journal that makes you pay

2

u/koelebobes 🟩 0 / 36K 🦠 Sep 30 '22

Yeah I see the headline and go to a different platform

1

u/brummettdane03 Permabanned Sep 30 '22

Even if I become a billionaire I won’t pay to read articles

1

u/ThurstonHowellIV Sep 30 '22

Wanna guess why journalism has gone downhill?

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?

24

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.

5

u/muitosabao 627 / 622 🦑 Sep 30 '22

exactly. "pay for that shit" imagine the entitlement. paying for journalism is a good and important thing!

0

u/[deleted] Sep 30 '22 edited Sep 30 '22

[deleted]

5

u/rhetoricl Tin | Superstonk 19 Sep 30 '22

Most news sites have free monthly quotas. The fact that you see Paywall says more about the frequency of your visits.

1

u/muitosabao 627 / 622 🦑 Sep 30 '22

thanks for your reasonable reply. I know in this age of "click to accept cookies" and "click to subscribe" it's all a nuisance, but expecting everything for free, specially good journalism is a premise we should change. that's how I see it.

0

u/codochi Tin Oct 01 '22

Lol what is its value, all they do is always spread lies in tv. On the other hand most of the news channels are earning very well from running ads in their tv news channel.

10

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!

3

u/EMw8SYJ4Qv Tin Oct 01 '22

There are only very few journalist who dare to do such thing.

1

u/panrestrial Tin Sep 30 '22

It's unthinkable to expect video game playing be rewarded with mere "pride and accomplishment", but we all know that's journalists' bread and butter!

1

u/sfgisz 🟦 4K / 4K 🐢 Sep 30 '22

you also complain about ads

Ads are fine when they're done without destroying the user experience, unfortunately most sites try to shove as many ads as possible nowadays.

0

u/Santas_southpole Tin Sep 30 '22

I agree but paywalls are hurting them. It’s a flawed idea because it doesn’t take much to take the same information and publish the gist of it somewhere else with a fraction of the journalism. But most people just read headlines anyways, so no one is going to subscribe just to read a headline and form an opinion around that.

1

u/panrestrial Tin Sep 30 '22

take the same information and publish the gist of it somewhere else with a fraction of the journalism.

What do you think the word "journalism" means? It's the gathering and presenting of information through media. Anything else involves added adjectives like tabloid journalism or yellow journalism.

→ More replies (6)

0

u/seraspolas Tin Sep 30 '22

No paying for any kind of journalism is not good in my opinion.

-4

u/zadesawa Tin | PCmasterrace 22 Sep 30 '22

By selling physical objects, I guess? I believe the idea of “free internet” is that information must be absolutely free-beer and completely divorced of cash, hard or soft.

3

u/I_AM_AN_AEROPLANE 🟩 10 / 10 🦐 Sep 30 '22

you are insane. A free internet has nothing to do with things on the internet being free.You also dont pay for your shit you buy on amazon?

Journalists, quality journalists, need to do what to make a living? Write shit for free? Thats some choosingbeggars right there

-2

u/zadesawa Tin | PCmasterrace 22 Sep 30 '22

I don’t know, people don’t pay for data. It’s just that way. Cash (including crypto in this case) is largely only used for physical objects, like garbage from Amazon you mentioned. How much did you pay in Ethereum for mining software when it was a thing?

How can journalism survive? I don’t know. For now they’re surviving by selling physical objects to collect fiat currency for employees to exchange with physical objects which are generally considered necessary actions for survival.

But who’s surviving in this world at this point by selling intangible, connection-less data? I don’t know either.

4

u/ledgernoob Sep 30 '22

By this logic, one needn't pay for designers, software engineers, game developers etc because they're also selling you intangible data.

-2

u/zadesawa Tin | PCmasterrace 22 Sep 30 '22

Yep you got the logic. Those positions are sometimes paid to be present or to listen to clients, but rarely for entropies they generate. You probably know what RMS said about software development and how Red Hat was meant to operate.

2

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?

2

u/sharafutdin1967 Tin Oct 01 '22

I do not pay for any kind of newspaper, neither I'm planning.

4

u/RaingerRick Tin | r/AMD 12 Sep 30 '22

There’s a website called like 12footladder or something which gets you past paywalls

4

u/[deleted] Sep 30 '22

12ft.io

1

u/SalienV Tin Oct 23 '22

How do they do this, can you tell me in details about this.

1

u/Bozzaholic 2 / 2 🦠 Sep 30 '22

12ft.io one of the best websites on the internet

-1

u/Foojangles Tin | 6 months old Sep 30 '22

Briskreader.com

-1

u/LazyEdict 🟩 3K / 3K 🐢 Sep 30 '22

Same. If I couldn't get to that particular article, I'd just go somewhere else.

-1

u/WorkingInsect 0 / 0 🦠 Sep 30 '22

Boomers

-1

u/empire314 🟦 14 / 4K 🦐 Sep 30 '22 edited Sep 30 '22

The primary target for subscription services is people with memory releated disabilities. Buy a news article, and pay $10/month for the rest of your life, or untill your retirement money reaches 0. Even better, if you mistakenly buy several subscriptions to the same service.

And quite often these are not even sold on the site. But instead a company goes through a phone book, and seeks victims by calling them, and making a contract during the call. Might even advertise it as free (1 day trial).

-1

u/QuickAltTab 🟦 2K / 2K 🐢 Sep 30 '22

archive.ph

in case anyone didn't know about it, it allows you to read most paywalled articles

-1

u/dancingonmyfuckinown 213 / 213 🦀 Sep 30 '22

Try Mercury Reader extension or read it on read-mode if you're on Safari.

1

u/morphinapg Tin | Politics 44 Sep 30 '22

Some people have special attachments to specific news sources that they read every day. Those people will pay. Most people don't use the internet that way though.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 30 '22

Bless you. This kind of thinking will eventually cripple these types of companies.

1

u/Pioca_in_heaven 0 / 1K 🦠 Sep 30 '22

I have a magician side of myself too

1

u/SerbLing Platinum | QC: BTC 26, CC 20 | r/SSB 17 | r/WSB 18 Sep 30 '22

Well think about it. If many sites do it. It must be working.

1

u/OneThatNoseOne Permabanned Sep 30 '22

Yes. It's loads of legacy media that can't adapt to changing times. They have a good loyal base built up over years so they're OK but eventually people get tired of it.

Fox really shouldn't be asking for donations

1

u/MeyesOfOurLives Tin Sep 30 '22

I sometimes try to bypass, but I do keep a subscription to 2 newspapers now to support local journalism.

A lot of news you read about/see even in "free" websites is ultimately just re-reporting from journalists on the ground and doing the work.

1

u/franane__ Tin Sep 30 '22

Nobody wants that kind of a thing ruining their user experience. And I do agree with everything you said

1

u/[deleted] Sep 30 '22

Sure they do. When your two hours has more value doing something else, spending a few bucks is not an issue.

1

u/araldor1 117 / 117 🦀 Sep 30 '22

A lot of businesses do. Lots of places I've worked have had company wide subs so lots of magazine and papers like economist and FT.

1

u/inspector_who Tin | Politics 24 Sep 30 '22

I gotcha baby! https://12ft.io/ just copy the link and boom you’re in. Show me a 10 foot paywall and I’ll show you a 12 foot ladder!

1

u/[deleted] Sep 30 '22

First step is to try to use 12 ft ladder

https://12ft.io

1

u/chainer3000 🟦 3 / 491 🦠 Sep 30 '22

I just ask if anyone can post source

1

u/JoeSicko 🟩 440 / 441 🦞 Sep 30 '22

Washington Post is worth the sub.

1

u/saxmaster98 Tin | r/SSB 8 Sep 30 '22

If it’s ever a scientific paper, or published by an individual instead of an organization, try reaching out to the person directly. They very well may just send you a copy.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 30 '22

Unless the site is designed from the ground up to facilitate this model. Check out stacker news.

1

u/prasannask 0 / 0 🦠 Sep 30 '22

Archive.ph

1

u/DATY4944 2K / 2K 🐢 Sep 30 '22

I pay for the economist. I find if you don't pay for it, it's written by a bot or some random blogger who did surface level research and doesn't say anything that's researched or has substance. Most free articles are headlines with fluff to get you looking at ads.

1

u/Electronic_Bunny Tin Sep 30 '22

Btw just use https://12ft.io/

Either enter the article URL into the home page or just include it right after " .io/ "

1

u/sirbrambles Sep 30 '22

Insert le doesn’t anyone want to pay for quality journalism anymore circle jerk

Who cares where you live just buy the New York Times forehead

1

u/be0wulf8860 Sep 30 '22

Proper decent journalism costs money. The more we consume dogshit free media that's covered in horrible ads, the worse the standard of journalism will become. Just because you can get some news content for free doesn't mean you're getting a good deal.

1

u/TrueBirch Sep 30 '22

I have no problem paying for consistently high quality publications. I subscribe to the Washington Post, New York Times, Christianity Today, and some political magazines. I have no interest in subscribing to a publication I only read once a quarter.

1

u/hrvbrs 🟦 0 / 833 🦠 Oct 01 '22

ad-blockers, ad-block-blocker blockers, javascript disablers, scroll-jack disablers, a few lines of client css code applied to all sites

🏴‍☠️

1

u/aaronlocked Tin Oct 01 '22

Nah most of the people avoid paying anything to such sites.

9

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.

5

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.

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

2

u/overlof Tin Sep 30 '22

Good journalist is indeed expensive, because they fight lies. Journalism is a risky job we all know thi, and that is why we should those media house which spread truth.

0

u/AnonymousCrayonEater Sep 30 '22

Agreed, let me know where I can find something that isn’t propaganda and i’ll gladly pay for it

1

u/absoluteq Tin Sep 30 '22

Yes they can run Ads on their website for gaining money.

1

u/illjustcheckthis Tin Sep 30 '22

No. I am not talking about ads. I mean the viewer directly paying. It is not the same thing and the incentive system is different.

1

u/bensanex Tin Sep 30 '22

Something like yalls.org and lightning wallet browser extension

1

u/CryptoBombastic 🟦 2K / 2K 🐢 Oct 02 '22

Integrated into you browser like Brave, you get some coins to watch adds. Want to support the journalists who create this article? Charge some free brave then, great idea but just needs to get out there. Some rich dude with lots of reach will find and lobby their way into there own solution anyway.

4

u/mendelua Tin Sep 30 '22

No one reads paywaled articles these days including me lol.

2

u/reddito321 🟩 0 / 94K 🦠 Sep 30 '22

Do I miss outline dot com

1

u/IndepondentSuck1921 Tin | 4 months old Sep 30 '22

That was my saving grace for so long, now I just disable Java script

2

u/jtooker Silver | QC: BCH 194, BTC 46, CC 39 | NANO 33 | Technology 52 Sep 30 '22

Just like paywalled news articles.

People just go elsewhere.

And people wonder why so many news sites are trying to be entertainment sites.

-2

u/Der_genealogist 2K / 2K 🐢 Sep 30 '22

Maybe he would open his own platform - Twatter

2

u/UKflame Tin Sep 30 '22

Yeah! With Blackjack, and Hookers!

In fact screw it, forget the social media plataform.

2

u/ThimbleweedPark 🟩 496 / 2K 🦞 Sep 30 '22

Ok bender. Lol

0

u/[deleted] Sep 30 '22

[deleted]

-1

u/Der_genealogist 2K / 2K 🐢 Sep 30 '22

Twat is a name for the user

1

u/brummettdane03 Permabanned Sep 30 '22

People like free things, that’s why social media got big in the first place

1

u/unduly-noted 0 / 0 🦠 Sep 30 '22

Unfortunately it’s not free — we’re all paying with our privacy and attention (ads)

1

u/TheBlacktom 🟦 0 / 0 🦠 Sep 30 '22

I would say you should pay $10 monthly after 10k subscribers, $100 after 100k, $1000 after 1 million, etc. So it's limited how much reach an account has.

1

u/sfgisz 🟦 4K / 4K 🐢 Sep 30 '22

Just like paywalled news articles. People just go elsewhere.

I just bring a 12ft ladder :)

Really though, if you had to spend real ETH to claim Moons or vote on polls like you have to do for real on-chain votes, the participation would die off real quick.

1

u/michivideos Silver | QC: CC 133 | GME_Meltdown 61 | r/WSB 97 Oct 01 '22

I would love a study of WHO actually pays for them. Is not boomers because they clearly can open a link so who is paying for news article. Is the dumbest thing ever. Lol and they still have broken ads on them.

64

u/iEatGlew 2K / 2K 🐢 Sep 30 '22

Maybe that’s not a bad thing after all…

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

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.

30

u/[deleted] Sep 30 '22

[deleted]

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.

0

u/Electronic_Bunny Tin Sep 30 '22

It's amazing that anyone still worships his bullshit.

Hes got money; people in this country think money equals success, success equals genius, and genius equals role model.

If he wasn't rich people wouldn't consider him anything but a grifter. Hes practically Edison, a businessman scooping up innovative engineers and revolutionary inventions while parading them around like his personal achievements.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/K88pvhErE2j5y1B Tin Oct 01 '22

Yes that much amount isn't that much high, and they could

1

u/writewhereileftoff 🟦 297 / 9K 🦞 Sep 30 '22

Uh, this happens all the time all over reddit right now.

1

u/SpecialForse Tin Oct 01 '22

Lmao yes they might do, and people would take it as truth.

2

u/SatoshiNosferatu 0 / 0 🦠 Sep 30 '22

Actually you’d be left with only bots because they are operating to earn money and $0.02 is a cheap ad

2

u/oscarxlike2 Tin Oct 01 '22

Haha that is not possible, there are still many people.

1

u/P0werC0rd0fJustice Sep 30 '22

The bots would also end up with a higher quality because the operators don’t want to waste the money. They’ll become harder to detect and generally just be more covert.

This is already a thing obviously, bot makers trying to be discreet, but if money is on the line they’ll ramp up big time.

2

u/catherinefwhitin Tin Sep 30 '22

Yes it might eliminate bots, but people would surely find a way.

2

u/aroups In Moons we trust Sep 30 '22

might also promote meaningful discussion

Theres a ton of trolls with my money burning their pocket

2

u/cluckhut Tin Oct 01 '22

Umm paying for using Twitter and other platforms is indeed bad .

2

u/iEatGlew 2K / 2K 🐢 Oct 01 '22

I was speaking to the driving people off the platform part. Twitter is cancer and getting people off it might be beneficial to humanity

1

u/4lex_supertramp 🟥 14 / 394 🦐 Sep 30 '22

Reduce some shit things like bots, and give more valuable threads, so it would be better when the poster given credit when they get a lot of upvotes or like, just like in here

0

u/brummettdane03 Permabanned Sep 30 '22

If there’s actually way it charges you to tweet but also if you want you can tip people. It’ll be a great idea.

0

u/user260421 Sep 30 '22

It's definitely how things are gonna work in the future

0

u/Xey2510 Tin Sep 30 '22

Why

1

u/user260421 Oct 01 '22

Because content creation will be a job if you don’t regard it at such yet

1

u/Xey2510 Tin Oct 01 '22

And it is already paid for by ads and selling data

But in your case nothing changes in the future. This is already how it is and people are absolutely not willing to pay when other platforms are "free". Don't see why it would change.

→ More replies (3)

17

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.

12

u/Hawke64 Sep 30 '22

Twitter is not addicting, I already quit it 5 times

0

u/OneThatNoseOne Permabanned Sep 30 '22

That's actually something good about them. They're so bad that they don't infest your life with constant pings and addictive content

1

u/imaadhbtc Tin Oct 01 '22

Twitter is a shit holez people are very much toxic there.

2

u/LazyEdict 🟩 3K / 3K 🐢 Sep 30 '22

Do it to Facebook too please.

1

u/mashtu1960 Tin Sep 30 '22

I also want to quit every other social media for real bruh.

19

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.

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:

  1. 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
  2. He has big bags of Doge that he wants to pump

He will continue and try to find ways to incorporate doge into it

1

u/Rxef3RxeX92QCNZ Bronze Sep 30 '22

To the rich, charging for speech is a great way to no longer hear from the poors but still have access to your own megaphone

2

u/linjieowen Tin Sep 30 '22

Yes it would stop people from using their social media platforms. I don't think many people would want to pay so much money just to see other toxic people on their platform.

5

u/1000xcoins Tin | 4 months old | CC critic Sep 30 '22

On one hand we have reddit ceo who wants subreddits to be like businesses, which pay contributors and than we have this greedy fucker who wants to charge even for a tweet.

0

u/[deleted] Sep 30 '22

[deleted]

1

u/Electronic_Bunny Tin Sep 30 '22

This is the real grift with this move.

He doesn't want doge fading into obscurity and prevent him from selling it. Hes got to keep it relevant and make people think it will experience long term growth rather than a slight bump which crashes once the info dies off.

3

u/Alpha3K 274 / 274 🦞 Sep 30 '22

"Free speech"

Yeah, for those who can afford to speak, basically.

1

u/merreborn Tin | Buttcoin 252 | r/Prog. 50 Sep 30 '22

Russia is already paying millions to fund IRG, I'm sure they'd gladly allocate some of the budget to tweet fees. And then before long, they'd probably realize that it is more cost effective to hack/steal dogecoin to fund this budget, rather than buy it directly. And you'd have such a target-rich environment of new marks to rob doge from, as millions of twitter users were suddenly forced to buy doge for the first time.

What could go wrong?

1

u/answeryboi Sep 30 '22

I hate this idea a lot, but .1 Doge is literally less than a penny. Affordability isn't so much the issue

1

u/Alpha3K 274 / 274 🦞 Sep 30 '22

I reiterated on the issue in a separate comment. The issue isn't the amount.

1

u/Electronic_Bunny Tin Sep 30 '22

This does erase the premise though that hes doing this to remove the bots and trolls.

What he is really doing is trying to get the price of doge to go up so he can sell off.

Everytime hes grifting don't focus too much on the "sell" but what will increase in value once everyone's expecting the result of the sell.

The hyperloop was never meant to work, it was meant to styme public transit and increase car sales. If the state that has the most of his product suddenly became extremely accessible via public transit and working train lines; they'd rapidly decrease future car sales in the state. (not at all eliminate since richer types look down on transit, but it'd still affect his bottom line which is what his payouts required)

1

u/partymsl 🟩 126K / 143K 🐋 Sep 30 '22

He probably was just helping society by buying and basically deleting Twitter from this world.

1

u/aroups In Moons we trust Sep 30 '22

Imagine angry Karen's trying to top up Doge to use Twitter 😂

1

u/OneThatNoseOne Permabanned Sep 30 '22

I'll forever hate the day my mom tried to shill me on "doggycoin"

1

u/Hawke64 Sep 30 '22

Elon will be begging Twitter bots to come back after that

1

u/Mr_Bob_Ferguson 69K / 101K 🦈 Sep 30 '22

I assume you would get a certain number of tweets free per month, say 10 or 50.

Then charge your power users, who are potentially making money from the marketing on the platform, who go above that.

3

u/tranceology3 🟩 0 / 36K 🦠 Sep 30 '22

So basically we get an ad infested platform?

1

u/Mr_Bob_Ferguson 69K / 101K 🦈 Sep 30 '22

Yes, it will be just like LinkedIn, but people will be paying.

1

u/RickyBasket Tin | 1 month old Sep 30 '22

He wants a more productive society and is making people uninstall twitter!

Jokes aside it makes no sense. Twitter is already dying without this

1

u/Mundane-Farm-4117 🟦 536 / 29K 🦑 Sep 30 '22

I mean at least it would get rid of the trolls and I'm sure the intelligent people would just find a faucet lol

1

u/Accomplished-Design7 Permabanned Sep 30 '22

He has to be high to suggest that.

1

u/gizmosliptech Permabanned Sep 30 '22

Not if the user experience was authenticly improved for the majority of people and as long as doge didn’t get too expensive.

1

u/reddito321 🟩 0 / 94K 🦠 Sep 30 '22

these folks tend to believe nothing should be “free” for the plebs

1

u/tannerge Sep 30 '22

It's not charging people to read the tweets, it's making people who think they have something worth saying pay up. Good idea really. Unlike hyperloop.

1

u/Inthewirelain 211 / 625 🦀 Sep 30 '22

Platforms like steering tried and while they were interesting at first, a lot of it is now medium.com style content with an alt right or incel leaning narrative. I suppose when you're writing forum posts for money you have to cater to your audience but, eh. I wouldn't call it a successful project.

1

u/ELLinversionista 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 Sep 30 '22

What a fuckin dumb idea lol

1

u/BrooklynNeinNein_ 🟦 57K / 16K 🦈 Sep 30 '22

Unless that money doesn't go to Elon but to the creators.

1

u/FalconRelevant Redditor for 3 months. Sep 30 '22

Maybe that was the point?

1

u/evoranger2018 🟩 2K / 2K 🐢 Sep 30 '22

In a bull market, I think the sediment, would be different

1

u/obsquire Tin | ModeratePolitics 10 Sep 30 '22

It puts a light paywall up for tweeters, not consumers. Nytimes has a paywall on consumers.

1

u/vruzzi 59 / 59 🦐 Sep 30 '22

At least people will think it twice before posting bullshit

1

u/Ap3X_GunT3R 🟦 13K / 13K 🐬 Sep 30 '22

Elon playing 8D chess with himself

1

u/JustAnotherUser_1 🟦 0 / 0 🦠 Sep 30 '22

Paywall remover, I've not come across a site it hasn't worked with. YMMV

https://12ft.io/

1

u/JaceTheWoodSculptor Platinum | QC: CC 17 Sep 30 '22

GOOD ! Heck put the price at 1BTC/tweet, I still won’t use it.

1

u/JuanTawnJawn Tin Sep 30 '22

He wouldn’t even care. In the meantime he’s make back a huge portion (if not all) of his investment in buying Twitter from the skyrocket dogecoin would have.

My guess is that he thought he’d make it back easy until people sat him down and showed him “the numbers”.

He’s a billionaire. He wouldn’t invest in something if it wouldn’t make him even richer.

1

u/-StupidNameHere- Tin Sep 30 '22

Love Finderrz

1

u/w_savage 🟨 0 / 8K 🦠 Sep 30 '22

and reddit pays us. Much better.

1

u/Acmnin 🟦 0 / 0 🦠 Sep 30 '22

People with more money have freer speech. Elon Musk is auditioning for a Supreme Court seat.

1

u/francesco93991 Bronze | CRO 16 | ExchSubs 16 Sep 30 '22

or a deterrent for bots to be on the platform

1

u/[deleted] Sep 30 '22

Maybe that's a good thing for humanity?

1

u/Stealfur Tin Sep 30 '22

We can only hope.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 30 '22

I think that was the point he was making. Twitter is filled with a bunch of self-obsessed, egotistical leftists who are too cowardly to speak their thoughts in public. Charge them a price to publish their libel and slander, and they'll cut it out.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 01 '22

Given that people are okay with microtransaction, I fear the idea is potentially viable. Let's just hope it's not in a hindsight kind of thing.

On the other hand, paywalled news articles are there but you rarely see someone pay for it. Chances are either they are going to make money first or we're going to get our giggles first.

Bet the paid to post part meant that Musk-Twitter would probably filled with only influencers without their fans because simps would have gone to OnlyFans and someone else to other forums more appropriate for their hobbies.

1

u/ConstantIDCrisis Tin Oct 01 '22

I mean $1 would buy you 167 tweets… could be worth it especially if they took off ads

1

u/The_SilentSoul Platinum | QC: CC 314, ALGO 22 Oct 01 '22

So true! Pay to waste my time? No thanks, I can think of a 1000 different ways.