By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Report: Twitter is planning to start charging $20 per month for verification

Now that he owns Twitter, Elon Musk has given employees their first ultimatum: Meet his deadline to introduce paid verification on Twitter or pack up and leave.

The directive is to change Twitter Blue, the company’s optional, $4.99 a month subscription that unlocks additional features, into a more expensive subscription that also verifies users, according to people familiar with the matter and internal correspondence seen by The Verge. Twitter is planning to charge $19.99 for the new Twitter Blue subscription, though that price is subject to change. Employees working on the project were told on Sunday that they need to meet a deadline of November 7th to launch the feature or they will be fired.

Musk has been clear in the months leading up to his acquisition that he wanted to revamp how Twitter verifies accounts and handles bots. He is also keen on growing subscriptions to become half of the company’s overall revenue. On Sunday, he tweeted: “The whole verification process is being revamped right now.”

Platformer’s Casey Newton first reported that Twitter was considering charging for verification. A spokesperson for Twitter didn’t respond to a request for comment by press time.

Developing...

Source: The Verge.

Last edited by trunkswd - on 30 October 2022

VGChartz Sales Analyst and Writer - William D'Angelo - I stream on Twitch and have my own YouTubeFollow me on Twitter @TrunksWD.

Writer of the Sales Comparison | Weekly Hardware Breakdown Top 10 | Weekly Sales Analysis | Marketshare Features, as well as daily news on the Video Game Industry.

Around the Network

So the conspy and the fake news website people are gonna get their trust badge for 20 dollars to spread shit. Holy hell.



Get ready for Elon to EA it up.



I'll never understand why people don't take advantage of stuff like this. Somebody with some cash behind them could easily swoop in with a new competitor without all the bullshit and steal twitter's market from under them. But nobody will, why? Same with Youtube, so many times they've pulled stuff that has pissed people off and those people would've jumped at a chance to move to a competitor, but it's still just Youtube and their near monopoly.



Ka-pi96 said:

I'll never understand why people don't take advantage of stuff like this. Somebody with some cash behind them could easily swoop in with a new competitor without all the bullshit and steal twitter's market from under them. But nobody will, why? Same with Youtube, so many times they've pulled stuff that has pissed people off and those people would've jumped at a chance to move to a competitor, but it's still just Youtube and their near monopoly.

Because people are sheep, they just flock to the most popular thing, what everyone else is using.



Around the Network

Bots and fake accounts are a constant problem on the platform. Changing the verification process is needed. Don't know if a subscription service like that is the right way to go. Seems to me that he initially simply want to stress-test the employees to see who he thinks are worthy to remain.

I think it is better for people to determine if they want to trust what is written based on who the source is rather than leaving the filtering up to twitter.



Pajderman said:

I think it is better for people to determine if they want to trust what is written based on who the source is rather than leaving the filtering up to twitter.

That's just begging for an avalanche of unchecked misinformation.

Pajderman said:

Seems to me that he initially simply want to stress-test the employees to see who he thinks are worthy to remain.

If I were a tech employee important enough to actually shape the quality of the company and its services I would immediately leave any company with the gall to "stress-test the employees to see who he thinks are worthy to remain." Lord knows I wouldn't need that shit and could easily find a job elsewhere.



I rather have all information unchecked (whatever that means) or not and decide for myself if i trust the source or not. Better yet if the information provided stands on its own without the need to base its value on who left the information. Information needing approval is the same as someone deciding what is the truth or not. I rather be able to decide that myself.
The worst part about being silenced is



Pajderman said:

I rather have all information unchecked (whatever that means) or not and decide for myself if i trust the source or not. Better yet if the information provided stands on its own without the need to base its value on who left the information. Information needing approval is the same as someone deciding what is the truth or not. I rather be able to decide that myself.

That's nice in theory, but in practice it's how millions of people die of preventable illnesses, innocent people become the target of malicious conspiracy theories, and democracy itself is under attack around the world.

Pajderman said:

The worst part about being silenced is

How fitting that your silence is really self imposed.



TallSilhouette said:

That's nice in theory, but in practice it's how millions of people die of preventable illnesses, innocent people become the target of malicious conspiracy theories, and democracy itself is under attack around the world.

You are under the assumption that whoever set the rules on what information are allowed always work for the general public's best interest. That is not always the case. We have a modern example in the information Russia gives its people regarding the war in Ukraine. 

People who distrust the information coming from a certain channel will go to other places for there information. One can be sure that outlets spreading misinformation will control what is published in a way that different views are not allowed. 

My understanding of democracy is that free speech is one of the most fundamental cornerstones so I sort of agree that it is under attack, but not from the point of view you have.