They’re probably tired of the harassment they’re getting for paying for it. A lot of the blue check tweets I’ve seen have a comment section mocking and berating them. I think it’s a shame they get to hide it. If they paid for it they should deal with the harassment that goes with it.
I agree with this sentiment but I think the real issue with this change is that Twitter Blue subscribers get their content’s visibility boosted. Without the blue checkmark visible, it’s impossible to tell who had their content boosted through organic engagement, and who paid for it
The Twitter Blue subscribers are not getting mocked for paying to remove ads. They are mocked for paying money to have their voices cary more weight. And they are paying that money to a company that as of late has supported CSAM, racism, and vaccine disinformation.
Right. And now, going into an election year where misinformation is growing in weight and volume, we will have no idea who’s artificially boosting their content.
Also, it means that every single breaking news tweet, who are you going to see first? All the dick riders who paid for Blue, which slants a very particular demographic’s way.
Do blue checks not see ads? I agree, when a service is subscription/donation only, it’s way better. But if any part of the business model is ad based, it’s shit, and paying to hide them won’t make it any better.
Well that’s incredibly stupid. Removing ads is usually the reason I’m paying for a service. Ironic that I as a non-paying user see less ads than the ones that are paying for it.
They’re probably tired of the harassment they’re getting for paying for it. A lot of the blue check tweets I’ve seen have a comment section mocking and berating them. I think it’s a shame they get to hide it. If they paid for it they should deal with the harassment that goes with it.
Seems like they’re getting the “freedom of speech” they paid for.
I personally think subscribtion model is better than ads so mocking these people seems kinda odd
I agree with this sentiment but I think the real issue with this change is that Twitter Blue subscribers get their content’s visibility boosted. Without the blue checkmark visible, it’s impossible to tell who had their content boosted through organic engagement, and who paid for it
The Twitter Blue subscribers are not getting mocked for paying to remove ads. They are mocked for paying money to have their voices cary more weight. And they are paying that money to a company that as of late has supported CSAM, racism, and vaccine disinformation.
Right. And now, going into an election year where misinformation is growing in weight and volume, we will have no idea who’s artificially boosting their content.
Also, it means that every single breaking news tweet, who are you going to see first? All the dick riders who paid for Blue, which slants a very particular demographic’s way.
2024 is going to be a nightmare.
Do blue checks not see ads? I agree, when a service is subscription/donation only, it’s way better. But if any part of the business model is ad based, it’s shit, and paying to hide them won’t make it any better.
they see “half” ads >_>
no joke
Imagine paying and still seeing ads… smh
Well that’s incredibly stupid. Removing ads is usually the reason I’m paying for a service. Ironic that I as a non-paying user see less ads than the ones that are paying for it.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
What’s the difference between paying to get your tweets seen and paying to get your tweets seen?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
What’s the difference between paying to get your tweets seen and paying to get your tweets seen?
deleted by creator