From "Sorry, Elon! NY Times, WaPo, LA Times and Other Major Outlets Won’t Pay for a Twitter Blue Check/On Saturday, the company’s verification system ends and blue checks will be available only to users who pay $8 a month" (The Wrap).
"'We aren’t planning to pay the monthly fee for verification of our institutional Twitter accounts' The New York Times told [CNN], adding, 'we also will not reimburse reporters for the verification of personal accounts' with the sole exception of 'rare instances where verified status would be essential for reporting purposes.' The Washington Post rejected subscribing 'as an institution or on behalf of our journalists.... it’s evident that verified checkmarks no longer represent authority and expertise.'"
Yes, but there are other problems with going without the check. As Bloomberg reports: 'Part of the sales pitch for Twitter Blue is that it will help accounts 'rocket to the top of replies, mentions and search.' In addition, the “For You” feed, the default view for users of the social network, will no longer recommend content from accounts that aren’t verified, Musk tweeted on Monday. So if you don’t subscribe, your content won’t be shown to people who aren’t following you. This could potentially have a huge impact on the platform by shifting the focus of feeds from popularity — leveraging the creators with the biggest fan base — to payment...."
Posts
86 comments:
I am thinking of paying up. One problem is that I refuse to post on Twitter, although I find it useful for following Matt Tiabbi, Glenn Greenwald, Mollie Hemingway, and a few others.
So, WaPo says:
it’s evident that verified checkmarks no longer represent authority and expertise.
I'm not on Twitter. Did it ever? Because Bloomberg says, a little farther down:
This [moving to a subscription model for checkmarks] could potentially have a huge impact on the platform by shifting the focus of feeds from popularity — leveraging the creators with the biggest fan base — to payment....
So which is it?
And do news outlets no longer pay for, say, Bloomberg? How is it beyond the pale for a new organization to pay a subscription for access? Is the problem that Bloomberg and its ilk provide subscriber access to content, whereas the blue check would provide access to eyeballs, and news organizations are still trying to maintain the fiction that they're too pure to care about the bottom line?
They'll pay for it somehow, then obfuscate and lie about doing it.
Drudge isn't sending nearly as much traffic their way these days.
"it’s evident that verified checkmarks no longer represent authority and expertise."
The quiet part said out loud. Hahaha.
When 12 different twitter accounts claimed to be William Shatner, the real Bill had to prove who he was in order to shut down the fake ones misrepresenting him to fans. Now, that's the original purpose of a blue check mark. I would imagine he's happy to pay so that he doesn't have to face that again.
They’ll pay. See how long these crybaby kids can hold their breath and stomp their feet…
Won’t be long.
"it’s evident that verified checkmarks no longer represent authority and expertise."
I've always thought they represented the ability to pay a bribe to a Twitter employee.
Twitter isn't important enough for me to pay to use it, but given how much journalists rely on it to research and promote stories, I think I know who will back down first.
"Drudge isn't sending nearly as much traffic their way these days."
Who reads Drudge? I gave up on that bum years ago.
Good. That many more lies I don't have to read.
@Kate:
Shatner has tweeted that he won't pay.
Blue check marks represented "authority"? Whose? Over what?
"it’s evident that verified checkmarks no longer represent authority and expertise."
Did they ever?
Pay $1000/month to let people know thar it's the official Washington Post account, when that was free before.
Go ahead Elon, make their day. Let impersonators cover Twitter in misrepresentations.
I am sure that will bring back the majority of last years advertisers, given they also will have to pay $12k a year too.
I look forward to seeing all the parody accounts of these "experts".
There's certainly an argument to be made that charging people a set fee for the blue checkmark is more democratic than the old system. And $8/month isn't that much money for anyone who thinks they need the prestige this lends to their Twitter. But here's the problem (potentially): When liberal-elite establishment led by the NYT noisily proclaims that they're opposed to the subscription model and are going to boycott it, is that going to render the blue checkmark the perceived moral equivalent of flying a Confederate flag or wearing a MAGA hat in the minds of the leftist lemmings?
Elon points out there have been bots with blue checks so A- the blue check never represented expertise and authority and 2- the left clearly hate this and based on the magnitude of hate it can’t be just about the money or the principle of the money. I have a theory they’re wee wee’d up because now journalism will be allowed on Twitter and not just ‘journalism’ that’s part of the propaganda machine of the left…
…meanwhile, Twitter is still selectively banning non-propaganda journalists.
It’s like these people don’t know how the internet works.
I don't know what to do. I rarely post on Twitter. I decided long ago that I didn't want to contribute my work to someone else's site when I had this blog. I could see that posting there did not bring people to my blog, so it didn't work with my flow and my energy. But occasionally I post, and I don't like getting downgraded for not having a check. I already had a problem with working *for* Twitter while it made money and I didn't get paid. Now, I'm asked to pay to work for them.
Reminds me of something one of my sons asked me (when he was quite young): "Do you have to pay to get a job?"
Auctoritas for sale.
Let’s be real.
How many SECONDS of lost Twitter traffic to the New York Times = the $8 monthly fee?
Now, I'm asked to pay to work for them.
No, you’re being asked to pay so they can keep people from impersonating you and fooling your readers.
For some people that’s a real issue and a valuable service.
Apparently some people forgot what it was like before the blue check system started.
Wouldn't paying for a blue checkmark just be like paying for an IP or website, the cost of doing business if you want to emphasize a post, if you want that? Or is it to prevent people from posing as you? I don't use Twitter or Facebook and had assumed people pay something nominal for using either of them.
I guess we just pay with our privacy.
As Elon Musk himself said, How do you make a small fortune in social media? Start out with a large one.
The Legacy Corporate Media is going out of business, so they are naturally upset at the business model that is harvesting all their subscribers. They'll pay up, if only to secure the right to complain more.
From "Sorry, Elon! NY Times, WaPo, LA Times and Other Major Outlets Won’t Pay for a Twitter Blue Check/On Saturday, the company’s verification system ends and blue checks will be available only to users who pay $8 a month" (The Wrap).
I get the feeling it's a pride thing for these pay-wall partisans.
Something like, "Musk gets $8 a month subscription fee for nothing while we do all this Pulitzer-winning (fake news) reporting?"
Reminds me of something one of my sons asked me (when he was quite young): "Do you have to pay to get a job?
Well, son, it depends on what type of "job" you're talking about.
AA said: "Do you have to pay to get a job?"
That's a pretty astute question, once the costs of an education and/or job training are factored in. Sure, at some jobs one can simply show up and start working (at least there used to be those jobs!), but these days to get a job that will support a family will require an up-front investment.
Hey, completely understandable. I don't pay money for information from the NYT, WaPo, LA Times, etc. It is your money, you decide what is worth spending it on.
Is it a tax?
You will pay if you mind other people posing as Ann Althouse.
Hopefully they don't see your blog and decide you are media that gets to pay $1000 instead of $8.
It will work or it won’t. If it doesn’t, Musk will try something else. It’s called entrepreneurship.
Those companies are losing a lot of money...probably a heavy lift for them.
It's just pure pettiness and arrogance.
They think they are the media.
Like most liberals, they feel entitled...
How much does it cost to comment at the WaPo or the NYT? If you want your message to be seen at the WaPo or NYT, how much does it cost to get it put into the classified sections? Twitter will charge $8 a month.
People who want dopamine hits will pay. Which means the journos will pay. The rest of us will continue in irrelevance.
Btw, I spend a lot of time reading Twitter. I have one browser window with about twenty or so tabs that I progress through over my coffee.
But I don't have an account.
Same with Reddit. I read a lot but never post.
I'm with Jamie's question. Was the purpose ever to denote authority and expertise?
I can see why Twitter wrote the policy the way they originally did. Early on they couldn't afford to defend themselves against the lawsuits likely to be brought by famous (and rich) people who were subjected to parodies and neither could they afford to say 'create your own account' or 'pay up if you don't want to be parodied'. However, that left the field open for abusive use of the power to designate an account as verified. People began to present themselves as if verification denoted an authoritative status because everybody on Twitter is playing status games, and an opaque process controlled by insiders is the perfect way to win at such a game.
As some people are noting Musk is turning verification into a bot-hunting device. If you get verified then there's reasonable assurance you're not a bot, and insiders can't be bribed to give bots verified status (yes, I have no evidence but it's a reasonable supposition that it has happened) if a billing address is required. That also aligns with his intention to downgrade non-verified accounts.
IMHO, it would be good if they all got off Twitter. Maybe they would grow some spine and become more independent minded in their reporting instead of trying to appease Twitter mobs.
If leftist media want to peel away - fine.
BYE.
I once paid to get a job.
At American Dispenser Corp on union square in NYC. It was a soap dispenser factory and I was a schlepper. I schlepped finished dispensers from 8th floor to the street. 1966
I got the job through an employment agency that I had to pay, Istr, 1 week wages to. Some in advance some weekly.
John Henry
If the former totalitarian, censoring, propaganda pushing Twitter management wanted $8 per month, all these now complaining liberal entities would have paid it.
Typical arrogant elite hypocrisy.
All I know is... if the whiny left is against it, it's probably a good thing.
"Maybe they would grow some spine and become more independent minded in their reporting instead of trying to appease Twitter mobs," said Sydney.
Surely you jest. They are the Twitter mob. They love the attention and the reach. They don't like it when Mollie Hemingway, Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi and others call them out.
You know, it wasn't all that long ago that the same people who are complaining about having to pay Twitter for their blue check status symbol were sure to take every opportunity to remind people of the $60-$70k Tesla in their driveway.
Oh, yes, I have heard this story before. Oh, we will not comply with this perfectly reasonable request, and here are all my friends that will not comply, and we will force you to change your policy! A few months later, the "hero" is wondering why all his friends have given in to the perfectly reasonable demands.
This is closely related to the lamentations of persons that a local restaurant went out of business despite it always being busy when they drove by, and how could that have happened since they were doing so well despite the fact that I have no idea what their financials were.
Let me know what the situation is six months from now, and whether the writer from The Wrap, whatever that is, had changed careers to food services.
paying Twitter monthly would be Business Expense ?
if Twitter is a Campaign Medium which specific cash-flow stream should book/incur this expense?
asking for DA Bragg? and NYT
I already had a problem with working *for* Twitter while it made money and I didn't get paid. Now, I'm asked to pay to work for them.
Well, with newspapers offering subscriptions for $1 a month, I can see why they are upset. I guess you get what you pay for.
The horse buggy makers say they will refuse to pay for gasoline.
think of it thus >> Elon's promise to use his FlameThrower against YourEnemies
American History
Fire insurance has over 200 years of history in America. The early fire marks of Benjamin Franklin's time can still be seen on some Philadelphia buildings as well as in other older American cities. Subscribers paid fire fighting companies in advance for fire protection and in exchange would receive a fire mark to attach to their building. The payments for the fire marks supported the fire fighting companies. Volunteer fire departments were also common in the United States, and some fire insurers contributed money to these departments and awarded bonuses to the first fire engine arriving at the scene of a fire.[3]
@Dogma and Pony Show wonders if a blue check will come to be seen like a MAGA hat, and @another old lawyer says Shatner, someone who's often impersonated, won't pay for one. I think that answers the question.
But occasionally I post, and I don't like getting downgraded for not having a check. I already had a problem with working *for* Twitter while it made money and I didn't get paid. Now, I'm asked to pay to work for them.
Think of it as auto insurance: It is the price you have to pay to protect yourself from idiots and assholes.
The Blue Marked Twitter accounts were used the same as Dixiecrat States used their voter registration. Everybody was equally able to register, but amazingly only the whites passed the voter tests applied by the good old boys. Heh, heh. Smooth.
Now the sole test is paying $96 a year. Now that’s EQUAL.
Cool, then they will have even less credibility than they do now. Because they are obviously tools of the democrat party, touting and stupidly repeating the memo they received from their masters.
If your "brand" is worth protecting at all $96 is pretty cheap.
These are the same people who moved to Canada once Trump was elected.
"As Elon Musk himself said, How do you make a small fortune in social media? Start out with a large one."
How do you make a small fortune... Start out with a large one — that's a very old joke. I don't know what the original business cited was.
Baseball?
Wine?
Restaurant?
It's a useful format.
>“it’s evident that verified checkmarks no longer represent authority and expertise.”
LOL
"We are not willing to pay for Twitter services" the NYT reported from behind a paywall.
I really find it hard to feel bad about an $8 a month fee to use a service from people that regularly spend $8 on a cup of coffee.
They'll pay. They know they can't not be there.
It's okay. I won't pay anything to read stories in the NY Times, The Washington Post, The LA Times and they won't pay to try to attract me. Seems mutually beneficial. I enjoy Twitter enough to pay $96 a year for a subscription though I post infrequently. I pay for The American Spectator and National Review as well as varous subscriptions to Locals and Substack because I want to be amused and informed. I wouldn't pay for TikTok or Facebook. I'd pay for Althouse in a heartbeat.
The kids call this "concern trolling."
I've been on Twitter for years. I think most people don't know how pervasive Twitter is around the world for far more concerns/information than the political squawking of the elite politicos.
I follow:
WA State DOT for traffic information and road conditions - especially the Cascade passes
my local police Deparment
the Seattle Weather Blog
Several FoX news anchors (Bret, Martha, Harris)
Libs of Tik-Tok
And several sites regarding K-dramas.
The Twitter K-Drama world is huge - and no one relies on the little blue check when they are commenting on celebrities or a particular drama. Tweets from Malaysia, Thailand, India, Egypt, Taiwan, Japan (with the ability to click on a translate feature) are all part of the experience. The K-pop world is even larger and it involves ALL of Asia as they follow certain groups or stars - concert dates, posting videos, etc. Tw
Twitter will not rise or fall based upon the Washington post paying $8 for those blue checks. It will survive by providing excellent access to a broad range of information around the world.
The stuffed shirts don't know how truly unimportant they are in the Twitterverse.
It's an interesting human interest handmade tale. Would people read ChatAnon at NYT (New York Twitter) without authentication? Would they feel validated by an an author who identified as African-American? As Transgender (e.g. homosexual)?
All Union jobs are the "pay to work" side of of being employed. Add in Professional Licenses and there is a substantial sum flowing to the State and Local government ( and then they harvest more of that sweet sweet union cash )
I read a fair amount on twitter, but nothing at all from the mentioned "major" outlets.
How do you make a small fortune... Start out with a large one — that's a very old joke. I don't know what the original business cited was.
I first saw it applied to automobile racing by Rob Walker, owner of a Formula 1 racing team and heir to the Johnny Walker whiskey fortune.
"I really find it hard to feel bad about an $8 a month fee to use a service from people that regularly spend $8 on a cup of coffee."
Coffee that, according to Bernie Sanders and his buddies, is sold by a uncaring billionaire Union Buster. Oh how complex - how burdensome it is in our modern era to be a prideful puritan! Every decision is fraught with potential taint by the association.
“Start with a large fortune.”
Didn’t Charles Foster Kane say something like that to Jedediah Leland about the newspaper business?
How do you make a small fortune... Start out with a large one — that's a very old joke. I don't know what the original business cited was.
I first heard it thirty years or so ago from a well-off acquaintance with his own Napa Valley wine label -- I got the sense it was a money-losing, tax-deductible source of entertainment (like Twitter is to Musk).
I paid for a few months to see if it was worth it and how I'd use it differently. Not worth it really for me to continue, but am really intrigued by how they're adding value and access, giving more robust tools and features.
Only those paying will be included in the "For You" (recommended tweets combined with those one follows) and they have an organizational benefit, where verified users who are part of a verified organization get the checks through their organization and so presumably don't have to pay anything extra. Probably costs much more than $8 for the organizations so that's why NYT and others are balking. Maybe they can't afford it given their much lower readership than years past.
Musk's argument for them paying, and against bots, etc., is that he doesn't want Twitter to be a platform for free advertising by other competing content companies.
CNN paid airports to be featured on airport tv screens. Musk is asking for a similar kind of deal.
According to Bard, Twitter is the 4th highest website by traffic last month (Behind Google, YouTube and Facebook).
In contrast, Drudgereport does not appear in the top 100 websites for news aggregators by traffic last month.
AA:
"I already had a problem with working *for* Twitter while it made money and I didn't get paid. Now, I'm asked to pay to work for them."
*****************
I don't see how you would be "working for" Twitter if you voluntarily posted there, UNLESS they asked you to, without compensation.
Are NYT subscribers "working for" the paper when they post comments on-line at the Times website, the one they "pay" to view?
How is what they do OK ,when what you want to do at Twitter ---posting unsolicited comments---is not?
But: have you ever considered opening up a Patreon account? I suspect you would do well, and it would be a vote of confidence from your commenters and lurkers.
so the times and politico will be less fake, or more,
it’s evident that verified checkmarks no longer represent authority and expertise.
Verified checkmarks have NEVER represented authority or expertise.
But it's amusing to see their delusions
Twitter suspended accounts for posting the "Trans Day of Rage" poster post the trans maniac murrdering 6 people, 3 of them 9 year old kids, at a Christian school
they didn't ban their people for SUPPORTING the "Trans Day of Rage", not doing THAT was perfectly acceptable.
it. was pointing out the existence of the "Trans Day of Rage" to non-supporters that got people banned.
So if Musk's Twitter goes under, my "shits to give" level is zero.
I dont' know what Musk thinks he's doing, but I've discovered I don't really care anymore, either. he talked a good game about being on the side of free speech and free exchange of information, but he left plenty of left wing fascists in place to suppress the rest of us.
So here's hoping he loses it all
What about us, Ann? Are we commenters working for you for free?
By your logic we are. Good as your posts are, it is us worker bee commenters who really make it good.
Maybe you should be paying us?
Just kidding to make a point. Thank you for providing a platform to yammer on. I'd pay a couple bucks a month to do it. But I'm glad it's free
John Henry
I thought all of those people and organizations quit Twitter when Musk bought it.
Isn't verification like seven dollars a month? Dig deep, boys.
"Reminds me of something one of my sons asked me (when he was quite young): "Do you have to pay to get a job?""
Isn't that how Unions work?
How much does it cost to comment? Well, nothing. Un, of course, you want to join a discussion at a particular website that requires payment. Here at Althouse, our gracious hostess requires nothing. And she moderates the comments. No implied free speech contract with her.
On pjmedia it’s $49 yearly for a basic account, $89 for a gold account. Gold also includes ad free browsing of all their sites. But instapundit, the main pjmedia attraction, is still free. I have blocked many iterations of Johnny who pollutes his comment section on a regular basis.
Paywalls? Currently I pay for adfree access to exactly one site- gocomics.com. $14.99 a year and I get my favorite comics emailed to me daily. A bargain. Even at twice the price, but don’t tell them that.
NY Times? Rochester Democrat and Chronicle? Closest big city newspaper. No longer buy daily papers. Too much for too little. I’m considering a subscription one of my local county papers. State, national, and international news of interest are easily found on the internet. Local stuff not so much.
I don’t mind ad supported sites. In real life- that’s what newspapers are and always were. That is, ads on the side that scroll up with the article- or stay fixed, or ads that stay on the bottom. Absolutely detest any that start autoplaying sound or video or the popups that cover what you’re trying to read.
The reason news sites aren’t covering their costs with advertising is- they’re letting the website and ad designers run wild with all the latest gimmicks. And it annoys people trying to read. Less obtrusive ads would actually draw more attention. I wouldn’t mind clicking from page 1 to page 2 with a different ad on each page- just like a newspaper. It could be done.
A subscription model needs to provide value that people want. Let’s take a new one on the scene- substack. I free subscribe to a number of users. No paid subscriptions. I would pay a reasonable fixed amount to access every substacker, then substack, after taking their cut, could divvy up payments to substackers who draw paid eyeballs. There’s lots of good content there.
Finding good content is a problem. How I found instapundit, Althouse, Legal Insurrection, etc., is lost in the mists of time. Would I pay for Althouse? No. Would I continue reading if there were non-obnoxious ads here? Yes. Would I pay for access to a site that included Althouse., Instapundit, The Other McCain, Legal Insurrection, and others? A reasonable amount- yes. Question is, what’s a reasonable amount? And how does it get divvied up?
Earnest Prole: "I got the sense it was a money-losing, tax-deductible source of entertainment (like Twitter is to Musk)."
What is the current market estimate for Twitter profits or losses for 2023?
It's a whopping $7 per month ($84/year) to sign up for an annual subscription! Oh, the humanity!
At least for the press, it's obvious that this is about the loss of a perceived (yet largely arbitrary) status marker.
For everyone else, it's a simple question of whether or not the service delivers a monthly value equivalent to two "grande" cups of coffee at Starbucks.
Good as your posts are, it is us worker bee commenters who really make it good.
Seconded. Since the demise of Protein Wisdom (yes, I know it's back - on substack I think? - but I haven't rekindled my former interest so far), Althouse has become my quotidian hangout, and it's largely for the comments. But I found that when our host last disabled comments and a bunch of us went over to whatever-it-was to try to keep the comments going, it didn't work out terribly well - it was hard to keep track of the posts on the Althouse site vis-a-vis the comment threads, and things tended to devolve into commentary on the commenting process, if I recall.
I'm guessing it didn't go great here either, since that dark period didn't last very long. We are symbiotic, it appears.
quotidian
What are you? Some kind of wise ass? Look at the big brain on Jamie!!!
(Yes. I looked it up) Ya coulda just said, " I come here every day."
Jeff is a hugely underutilized asset.
Look at the big brain on Jamie!!!
If you are talking about the Jamie who posted just above you, I can confirm she does indeed have a big brain. She was the only person smarter than me at our high school.
Post a Comment