Twitter Blue subscribers can now hide their blue checks
Twitter Blue subscribers can now hide their blue checks
www.theverge.com Twitter Blue subscribers can now hide their blue checks
Now nobody can tell if you paid for Twitter or not.
![[VERGE] Twitter Blue subscribers can now hide their blue checks](https://radiation.party/pictrs/image/d37ad333-e3e7-4d19-8e0a-160d6128bff9.jpeg?format=webp&thumbnail=196)
You're viewing a single thread.
128 comments
-
twitter blue subscribers can now hide the entire reason they spent money on it in the first place
-
this comment has quite a reasonable explanation. Your posts are boosted without you disclosing you paid for it.
-
Well that sounds terrible. At least with the blue logo you can just hide or block their posts to get to the organic engagement.
-
yeah, seems like now it will be very difficult to weed them out... just another reason to go away from twitter
-
Knowing how well Twitter is being maintained, there's likely going to be something left in the code to give Blue people away
-
And if so, the blocker I have on PC will find them and block them still.
-
-
-
-
well that explains why whenever i look at a tweet i have to scroll past all the top comments which are inevitably the stupidest ones
-
Oh I see, the blue checks have become a direct competition to bot farms. I think I'd rather give the money to a bunch of soulless machines than a soulless human.
-
Also it let's Elon pretend that more people are subbed than really are. We know he likes to inflate the perception of whose willing to pay for it after he gave out a bunch of free checks to celebrities who refused to sign up
-
-
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.
-
-
-
What’s the difference between paying to get your tweets seen and paying to get your tweets seen?
-
-
-
128 comments