Starting August 7th, advertisers that haven’t reached certain spending thresholds will lose their official brand account verification. According to emails obtained by the WSJ, brands need to have spent at least $1,000 on ads within the prior 30 days or $6,000 in the previous 180 days to retain the gold checkmark identifying that the account belongs to a verified brand.

Threatening to remove verified checkmarks is a risky move given how many ‘Twitter alternative’ services like Threads and Bluesky are cropping up and how willing consumers appear to be to jump ship, with Threads rocketing to 100 million registrations in just five days. That said, it’s not like other efforts to drum up some additional cash, like increasing API pricing, have gone down especially well, either. It’s a bold strategy, Cotton — let’s see if it pays off for him.

    • enu@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 years ago

      At this point, I’d say: Providing entertainment to the internet while also helping grow the fediverse

      • theTrainMan932@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Having never been on twitter myself I’m especially entertained, watching and laughing from a far corner of the internet

        • glimse@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          Twitter has a bad reputation from the “buzzworthy” people. It was nowhere near as bad as the terminally online would have you believe. I’d even say it was a GREAT site before 2016.

          It’s a social media platform. You (used to) choose whose tweets you saw. As such, it was easy to curate your account to stick to one kind of content. I never saw politics or sports, I only followed funny people. And I had every major brand straight up blocked

          The 140 character days were like text Vine where you made a joke through constraints and I loved it

          • EnglishMobster@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            Notably, Vine was created by Twitter.

            And then Vine was axed by Twitter. (One of the dumbest mistakes Twitter ever made - look how successful TikTok is, and think that Twitter literally had that a decade ago and decided to shut it down.)

            So really, Vine was just video Twitter, instead of Twitter being text Vine.

          • theTrainMan932@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 years ago

            I wasn’t really involved with social media back then sadly, but yes I did get that general impression. Before all the toxicity really overtook it around 2020 it did seem quite pleasant.

            Shame really, corporate greed taking something quite nice and milking it so hard it’s absolutely ruined. Then again, it gives way to things like bluesky so i guess it has its upsides!

            • glimse@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              See that’s the thing …toxicity DIDN’T take over, you just heard about it more.

              This internet hate machine loves to pretend that the angry tweet screenshots they see reposted over and over are representative of the site as a whole while all the funny tweet screenshots they’ve laughed at are one in a million. But if you look at the usernames on the political ones it’s usually the same handful of people…like that guy who starts every other tweet with “Holy fucking shit, Trump just…” Or the Brooklyn dad guy

              • theTrainMan932@infosec.pub
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 years ago

                I mean you know better than me (I’m not even on twitter so everything i see is just the internet perspective of it). I’ll take your word for it as you’re probably right!

      • 007v2@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        I think the combination of sheer incompetence and his overlord bosses wanting to kill Twitter. Which is wild to me, since it could have been used as a propaganda tool for him ultimately worth more than the money he paid for it, despite the ‘worth’ of the company. The guy lives in a bubble with yes men surrounding him. He is the epitome of the meme “is it me that’s wrong? - no everyone else is out of touch”.

        • anlumo@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          A right-wing propaganda tool needs people outside of the right wing to look at it. He’s far too embedded into that space to be able to appeal to other groups.

    • jsveiga@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      Since he started his act about buying Twitter I saw that as a personal vendetta to harm it - the ultimate tantrum for being mocked at there and not being under his control. He said he’d buy then backed off just to hurt Twitter’s value, but then when he was forced to buy it for the first offer value, he got even more butthurt.

      It’s pretty clear that everything he’s done since is to get revenge and destroy it. It’s insane that some people keep praising his decisions towards Twitter as anything but ridiculous.

      He’s the rich brat who doesn’t get brown nosed by the waiter in front of his date, then proceed to buy the restaurant just to fire the guy.

      • HeyListenWatchOut@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        Admittedly, it’s very tinfoil hat - but I honestly believe Elon bought it to sink it.

        He’s gotten favorable contracts for more profitable tangible ventures like Starlink from otherwise authoritarian countries over recent years, and I would be willing to bet that he agreed to buy and sink Twitter at the behest of said authoritarian types due to how Twitter has been a tool for not only journalists, but protesters and perhaps most importantly - whistleblowers looking to expose otherwise smoke-screened actions taken by totalitarian states who control their broadcast airwaves and large news sources.

        Twitter is… or at least was by design - a platform where anyone could record and upload media of multiple kinds showing actual war crimes being committed with a real possibility of their cries being seen and heard by the whole world in a matter of hours.

        Being able to destroy or even just hamper the ability of anyone in any country to do that is probably pretty attractive to types who like to otherwise control the flow of information in their dominions.

        • Lazylazycat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 years ago

          Surely there are easier ways to destroy it without making himself look really, really dumb.

          I don’t think it’s they deep, I think he’s just quite stupid.

          • mrbubblesort@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 years ago

            Remember back in 2015 ~ 16 when we thought Trump was playing 4d chess, but it turned out he was really actually that dumb all along? It’s the same with Musk. We want to believe that someone who’s had so much success has a secret plan or something, but sometimes they really are just stupid chucklefucks

            • keegomatic@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              I’m not saying this to be an asshole, because I’m happy that you got to the right conclusion eventually, but I have to clarify for history’s sake: if you thought Trump was playing 4D chess in 2015-2016 then you were being duped. Most of us understood what he was from the get-go. Claims of 4D chess have always been stupid.

              Again, I’m happy that you figured it out. Everyone makes mistakes. But “we” didn’t think he was playing 4D chess. The hypothesis about Musk/Twitter above is hardly the same.

              • mrbubblesort@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 years ago

                Pleased don’t lump me in with those people, I was only using “we” in the figurative sense. I’ve been anti-trump longer than many people on this site have been alive

      • penguin@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Didn’t he offer to buy it so he could sell a bunch of tesla shares without sinking the value? And then he tried to back out, but was forced to buy it.

  • Buttons@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    I heard that Twitter originally added verification because they were getting sued over imposters, so they added verification to delegitimize imposters and thus give less reason for others to sue them.

    Now Musk is getting rid of verification en masse, so the original reason for the lawsuits will return.

    Here’s how to play it if you’re a business who loses your Twitter verification:

    1. Allow yourself to lose verification.
    2. Make a backroom deal with some random person, have that person make a fake account for your business and buy verification. Have the person post some bad things under their fake and verified account.
    3. Sue Twitter since they have verified the fake account and removed verification of the real account, and are thus committing libel.
    • Hankaaron@yall.theatl.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      Step 2 is illegal and not realistic. But honestly someone will prob do that for big brands anyway so same logic applies anyway

      • tryptaminev@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        As if large businesses care about what is legal. They only care if they can’t get away with it and if the costs for fines etc. exceed the revenue made by the violation.

        But nobody needs to buy the Ads tobact as an imposter, since that was working w.o. verification already.

  • MilitantAtheist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 years ago

    Imagine what this must look like on the inside.

    You’re a software engineer at Twitter. You keep getting these weird tasks that you know are stupid, but you keep doing them just to see where the hell this bullshit will end up.

    • Zetaphor@zemmy.cc
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 years ago

      And you haven’t already quit because you’re on an H1B/GC visa, and so your residence in the US is tied to your employment, effectively making you a corporate owned slave.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        2 years ago

        TIL people deported their slaves when they were unruly.

    • Hup!@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      This is how distopias happen. Hell this is how fascism sneaks up on people if they aren’t paying close attention.

    • krakenx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Imagine being the person who last Sunday night got the call from Elon “I really like this random X logo. Redo the entire site right now and remove all of the birds and blue theming, and have it live in production by tomorrow morning.”

  • sirnak@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    This look more and more like a speedrun on how to bring down a well established platform in under a year.

  • Chaotic Entropy@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    Sooo… blackmail/coercion then…?

    “Be a shame if you lost control of your brand on my platform, be a damn shame…”

  • Lightor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Wait, wait, wait, lemme get this right.

    Problem: They were low or revenue.

    Response: Increase API costs

    Problem: API costs are too high

    Response: People started scrapping Twitter

    Problem: People are scrapping the site

    Response: Make users sign in to view tweets

    Problem: People have to sign in to see any ads too

    Response: Tell companies that if they don’t spend enough on ads they will lose verification.

    I mean, what’s next?

  • theneverfox@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    More than that.

    He’s dispelling the myth of the billionaire businessman. He could show up quite a lot in all sorts of history books

  • MaxPow3r11@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    “I just reinstated a pedophile. Now pay me to put your ads on my SHIT” ~Elon “fascists are my best and only friends” Musk

      • Asafum@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Musking: being a billionaire and therefore believing everything you do is genius while simultaneously ruining everything you touch. Buying your way into brands and calling yourself the founder.

        Occasionally someone “Musking” might also call people they don’t like a pedophile.