Discussion

• X X on x

  Not A Bot  —  As of October 17th, 2023 we've started testing “Not A Bot”, a new subscription method …

• X X on x

  Not-a-Bot Terms and Conditions

• @reporterzoe Zoe Schiffer on threads

  The much requested feature from advertisers has arrived

• @malwaretech Marcus Hutchins on threads

  I can't think of a single type of spam or bot activity that would be stopped by forcing users to pay $1 per year.  If anything, it's just going to cost the platform money.  Spammers will use stolen credit cards and the chargeback fees will cost more than the account fee. https://…

• @mergesort Joe F on threads

  When I was working on verification at Twitter I remember leadership asking and sometimes pressuring us to figure out all sorts of infeasible ways to prove users were human (such as making them use TouchID/FaceID every day upon opening the app, despite the fact Twitter has a publi…

• @timothyjchambers Tim Chambers on threads

  The only way this plan could fail, is if spammers, scammers, grifters or trolls have a spare dollar per year, and pilfered credit cards.  Virtually bullet proof plan, Sir.

• @camroth Cameron Roth on threads

  “It worked for WhatsApp ¯\_(ツ)_/¯” This is like that time Trump read Nixon's autobiography, stopped 2/3 of the way through, then thought “this is brilliant”

• @diegojimenez Diego Jiménez on threads

  Congrats to the @threads team for another killer feature launch!

• @carnage4life Dare Obasanjo on threads

  How does he keep coming up with even worse ideas?  X is testing requiring an annual subscription before you can tweet or retweet.  Current price $1/year.  This will definitely fix their money problems...not.

• @jw Josh Williams on threads

  I realize there is a small market of expat libertarian preppers in New Zealand who might pay the dollar, but who am I kidding?  That cohort is probably all-in already at $8 a month.  Soooooo who's left?  Is there even a statistically significant population remaining of “new” Twit…

• @mattbinder Matt Binder on threads

  Twitter / X is testing out charging users $1 a year Elon Musk & his fans tried to claim that everyone took him out of context last month when he said he'd do this you will not be able to post, like, or RT unless you pay report: https://fortune.com/... confirmed by the platform mi…

• @timothyjchambers Tim Chambers on threads

  Elon should just bite the bullet and put the whole site behind a paywall.  That is what he was mulling over from the start and its where this story clearly ends. https://www.theverge.com/...

• @parkerortolani Parker Ortolani on threads

  The vast majority of people I know balk at paying even $1 for any sort of in-app purchase.  And with the value proposition of X down the toilet, why would anyone bother?  Doubt there's much room for growth, so he's going to have to start charging all existing users at some point.…

• @camwilsonreporter Cameron Wilson on threads

  i don't think it's a terrible idea generally and I'm personally going to pay it for progressional reasons BUT I think a diminished Twitter with growing free competitors will not succeed with this

• @chinmay.karande Chinmay Karande on threads

  To their credit, introducing a small amount of cost or friction to an otherwise near costless workflow is a known standard technique in fighting spam and scaled attacks.  It breaks the economics of the bots - they run on extremely low margins and even a small cost makes them unvi…

• @b_fung Brian Fung on threads

  It's official: X is testing a $1 annual charge to be able to post.  Bots aside, it's hard to see how this doesn't drive even real users away en masse.  Elon can't have it both ways; the same payment friction that's meant to create a barrier to entry for bots must necessarily impo…

• @oneunderscore__ Ben Collins on threads

  Nighty night.

• @timothyjchambers Tim Chambers on threads

  Not seeing a second source yet on this story.  But this feels very much akin to what Elon was hinting at earlier and that Yaccarino didn't deny at her interview. https://fortune.com/...

• @tomgara Tom Gara on threads

  Unpopular take, especially here, but IMO this isn't such a bad idea

• @guillecummings @guillecummings on threads

  Even if you pay $1 a year to use Twitter you're a rube.

• @mike_isaac Mike Isaac on threads

  i am truly in awe of how their imagination for “how to make a product fucking suck” is limitless

• @shepgo@mastodon.social @shepgo@mastodon.social on mastodon

  @Techmeme  —  Interestingly, I had to do the same thing with Metafilter more than two decades ago, but IIRC that was a one-time charge of something like $10.

• @ChrisPirillo@mastodon.social Chris Pirillo on mastodon

  @Techmeme ...it's a bold strategy, Cotton.  Let's see if it pays off for 'em.

• @scalzi.com John Scalzi on bluesky

  “Let me into your financial information, just a little bit, come on, it'll be fine”  —  Spoiler: It will not be fine [embedded post]

• @dell.bsky.social Dell Cameron on bluesky

  all of these “features” are what distinguishes a working account from a suspended one.  what he's doing is suspending users who don't pay, which is also to say, he's suspending users who won't link their pseudonymous accounts to a piece of sensitive personal information.  [embedd…

• @darthbluesky.bsky.social @darthbluesky.bsky.social on bluesky

  the absolute funniest outcome will be all the paid bluechecks dropping their eight dollar monthly plan for the one dollar a year plan lol

• @jeremydstanley.com Jeremy Stanley on bluesky

  “new users” is the phrase ppl are skipping.  a misguided attempt to deal with bots that will also torpedo actual signups, and hasten the site's demise [embedded post]

• @dell.bsky.social Dell Cameron on bluesky

  Twitter to enrich surveillance data gathered on users through one dollar scheme [embedded post]

• @golikehellmachine.bsky.social @golikehellmachine.bsky.social on bluesky

  day late and, well, you know how it goes.  [embedded post]

• @chickenpuppet.bsky.social @chickenpuppet.bsky.social on bluesky

  Your credit card info is worth more than a dollar [embedded post]

• @sababausa.bsky.social @sababausa.bsky.social on bluesky

  For $1 per year, seems like they're trying to collect users' credit card info to segue into some other bigger changes?

• @velodus.bsky.social @velodus.bsky.social on bluesky

  I hope the hamsters running on the wheels that power this app's servers are prepared for this news [embedded post]

• @srossmktg.bsky.social Spencer M Ross on bluesky

  As a marketing professor, my professional opinion is, this is funny as fuck.  —  The nuance is that it's “new users” but that nuance will escape many remaining users who will flee (or go inactive).  [embedded post]

• @jaredlholt.bsky.social Jared Holt on bluesky

  How many ideas like this has Elon and co thrown out into the ether?  Hamfisted way to run a company [embedded post]

• @darthbluesky.bsky.social @darthbluesky.bsky.social on bluesky

  u know who is more than willing to pay a dollar...  bot spammers lol [embedded post]

• @support @support on x

  Starting today, we're testing a new program (Not A Bot) in New Zealand and the Philippines. New, unverified accounts will be required to sign up for a $1 annual subscription to be able to post & interact with other posts. Within this test, existing users are not affected. This ne…

• @elonmusk Elon Musk on x

  @xDaily Correct, read for free, but $1/year to write. It's the only way to fight bots without blocking real users. This won't stop bots completely, but it will be 1000X harder to manipulate the platform.

• @film_girl @film_girl on x

  More thoughts: this will not stop bots (b/c bots use stolen credit cards anyway), this will effectively neuter all future user growth once it is expanded beyond these first markets, and this is an absolute slap-in-the-face to advertisers who will now get even lower engagement.

• @buccocapital BuccoCapital Guy on x

  What it's like to work at Twitter now: “Fuck it, do you think group A would pay us $B to do C? We're fucking broke. What do we have to lose? Let's try it” [image]

• @jenmsft Jen Gentleman on x

  It's a good thing that there is famously no monetary (or other) incentive to create bot/scam accounts, and creators of those sorts of accounts can't afford to pay $1

• @wadhwa Vivek Wadhwa on x

  This actually is a good idea because it will reduce the number of bots and anonymous trolls by forcing them to make a payment.

• @evacide Eva on x

  The notion that charging new users $1 per year will stop bots is laughable. https://fortune.com/...

• @james_acton32 @james_acton32 on x

  When this starts, I'm finished. I'm not prepared to pay for the privilege of producing content that attracts advertisers. And the fact that my money would go to someone so intent on stirring hatred and undermining democracy... 👋👋👋

• @david_strathdee David Strathdee on x

  There's only one reason to charge people such an absurdly low figure to use this site: because they want your credit card information. A reminder that I'm also on Blue/Mast/Insta at the same handle.

• @mrbenwexler Ben Wexler on x

  That would make it history's most overpriced product

• @kyliebytes Kylie Robison on x

  🚨 SCOOP: X, formerly known as Twitter, will begin charging new users $1 a year to access key features including the ability to tweet and retweet https://fortune.com/...

• @benfowlkesmma Ben Fowlkes on x

  Charging $1 a year is a great way to say ‘we just want your credit card numbers.’

• @kyliebytes Kylie Robison on x

  The company also published “Not-a-Bot Terms and Conditions” today outlining its plan for a paid subscription service that gives users certain abilities on their platform, like posting content and interacting with other users. https://fortune.com/...

• @elysiumdesigns Fran Schwartz on x

  Seems easy and inexpensive? $1.00 a year and X gets new user's financial information. https://fortune.com/...

• @elonmusk Elon Musk on x

  @kylenabecker It's the only way

• @molly0xfff Molly White on x

  ̶f̶r̶e̶e̶ ̶s̶p̶e̶e̶c̶h̶ $1 speech

• @vinn_ayy Vinny Thomas on x

  A dollar a year? brother i would not pay an acorn a decade

• @kairyssdal Kai Ryssdal on x

  Ah yes - Tweeting as a “key feature” How to set 44 billion dollars on fire, ladies and gentlemen.

• @film_girl @film_girl on x

  lol. How to kill your network. One step at a time

• @tianyuf Tianyu Fang on x

  the $1 doesn't matter - this effectively means that anyone who doesn't have an international credit card can't be on this platform

• @chrispirillo Chris Pirillo on x

  It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for 'em.

• r/TwoBestFriendsPlay r on reddit

  Twitter is now officially behind a paywall - you need to give them $1 to do literally anything with any account made after today

• r/technology r on reddit

  X will start charging new users in two countries $1 per year

• r/newzealand r on reddit

  X will start charging new users in two countries $1 per year

• r/Twitter r on reddit

  X will begin charging new users $1 a year

• r/popculturechat r on reddit

  X, formerly known as Twitter, will begin charging new users $1 a year to access key features including the ability to tweet and retweet

• r/elonmusk r on reddit

  X will begin charging new users $1 a year

• r/RealTesla r on reddit

  EXCLUSIVE: X, formerly known as Twitter, will begin charging new users $1 a year to access key features including the ability to tweet and retweet

• r/EnoughMuskSpam r on reddit

  X will begin charging new users $1 a year

• @gergelyorosz Gergely Orosz on x

  Twitter is finally back to A/B testing major changes (that are risky ones). Fun fact on how New Zealand is a very common “test market” for a lot of global companies, esp social media ones. English-speaking market but small enough that if things are messed up, revenue unaffected.

• @gergelyorosz Gergely Orosz on x

  I know there's a lot of negativity on how charging for usage will affect the site, and how this goes very clearly agains free speech (its now paid speech!) The positive thing I see is that - seemingly for the first time since the takeover! - Twitter is running *an experiment*...

• @xdaily @xdaily on x

  INSIGHT: This new move isn't primarily about the $1/year cost. It's intended to be a trivial amount to pay. It's about the credit card + phone number verification requirement. Massively harder to scale networks with 10s of 1000s of bots when *every* single bot will require this

• @jobvo Job on x

  Matt excellently making the point that $1 is not a lot. But I think it not being sufficient doesn't preclude it from being useful or effective.

• @troyhunt Troy Hunt on x

  There's been a bunch of “but your service is different” responses so let me clarify: the observation is that my experience reconciles with Twitter's proposal in that attaching a payment impacted abuse. Doesn't matter that the services are different, the premise is the same.

• @troyhunt Troy Hunt on x

  This will be a hugely unpopular thing, however... The premise of attaching a nominal cost to a previously free service in order to combat abuse is exactly what I did with the @haveibeenpwned API keys 4 years ago: https://www.troyhunt.com/... This stopped abuse dead. Not a little.…

• @photomatt Matt Mullenweg on x

  Cost of Spam, or why charging $1/yr won't solve X/Twitter's problems https://ma.tt/...