www.engadget.com
If Twitter really did demand (unconfirmed for now) $50k per month for something that was previously free, one has to assume that Twitter wanted them to leave. Which hints yet again at deliberately destroying the platform as a going concern.and The Leaving continues...
NYC's transport authority will no longer post service alerts on Twitter
The MTA is leaving Twitter. They said paying Twitter $50,000 a month for API access wouldn't be the best use of resources.
One would also have to wonder what twitter costs to run and how it was financing running itself. Further, if organizations are only using a thing because it is free then that is how much they value it. Clearly using twitter is of no benefit to them so why were they doing it? So many questions.
mashable.com
It's like it's being run by a 7 year old with acute tantrum issues. The rest of the staff must have pulled most of their hair out by now.blowback makes dopey elon change his mind
Public services will get free API access again, Twitter says
Good news from Twitter: It's not implementing one of its bad ideas.
www.engadget.com
Blue ticks were never an indication of reliable information. All they were supposed to say is that the person whose identity was behind the account was that person in reality. It did not indicate that the person was writing their own tweets or that the tweets were a reliable source of truth. Verification was touted to be just that - the verification of identity, but it was always a status symbol and could be given to or taken away from anyone for any reason known only to those having the authority to grant or remove them, and with the social status award came the ability to reach more people both through twitter and through the traditional media.
But they were a decent indication of reliable identity. The vast majority of the time, the account was who it claimed to be. That's gone now. Now you have to check previous Tweets, follower numbers, etc, to try to gauge if the claimed ID is who is actually Tweeting. Usually more hassle than it's worth.
It usually didn't have to. The fact that it was a reasonable indicator of true identity was enough in most instances. People who were concerned about their reputations were generally (not always) unlikely to be spreading scams or fake news. It wasn't 100% reliable but was a decent rule of thumb. Again, gone now.
Alas, not quite. Now it means you either paid or are one of the "power accounts" Elon gave free blue ticks to, completely contradicting one of his stated reasons for changing the system. If he really is doing it for the reasons he stated, he's made a rip-roaring howling arse of it so far.
In many ways? Well, perhaps, but not in the only one that really mattered to me in my day to day use of the platform. And I doubt I'm such a niche Twitter user as to be the only one who now uses the blue ticks in the opposite way from how they used to. As for better? I suppose the army of new blue ticks might think it's better but it's certainly devalued the platform from my perspective. I still use it most days but nowhere near as much as I used to and that's one of the reasons why.
You misread the opening sentence.
you most definitely are not.
Every where I went on twitter blue checks were frequently derided before Elon. As were "pronouns in bio". It was generally taken as a sign that you were ideologically approved. I'm not sure what motivations people have to buy blue checks but some people may do it because they still feel it legitimizes them, some may do it because it further pollutes the value of a blue check (which some organizations have fought to maintain) and there may be others that just like it because they aren't freeloading like all the unpaid accounts. Who can value the moral weight of such things? That's what the market is all about I guess.
It seems she left because of the decision to allow the Matt Walsh film, What is a Woman, to be shown. I watched it last night to see what all the fuss was about and found it to be a mostly reasonable look at the issues surrounding Trans rights. I'm certainly not a Matt Walsh fan, but with the exception of an opinionated ranty bit towards the end, I thought he did a pretty good job of providing balance. It's obviously biased but so is any other "documentary" you care to watch. (I'd probably hesitate to label it a documentary. It was more aimed at an entertainment angle, and pretty funny in parts. The style reminded me a bit of Fahrenheit 911, by Michael Moore. )Good riddance
Twitter's head of trust and safety resigns, becoming the 2nd person to quit the role following Elon Musk's takeover
Ella Irwin confirmed to Reuters that she'd left her position at Twitter. Her predecessor, Yoel Roth, resigned on November 10.ca.finance.yahoo.com
This has been the problem with twitter for years (as well as other "social" networks but twitter in particular). These "trust and safety" teams ran as little soviets, minitries of truth maintaining ideological purity on the interwebs. That's why there was all that squealing about Elon taking over Twitter (and why he wanted it). Otherwise it was just another corporate takeover, nothing to have a meltdown over - unless you are a loud and unpopular minority dictating "correct" opinions to the rabble. There are still a lot of wokies about but keep on cleaning house. I feel like the tide is solidly turning. Just the other week, on two separate radio science shows, Watson and Crick were rehabilitated back to being respectable credit worthy in the discovery of the Double Helix, for example, and we are now 5 days into "Pride Month" and I've yet to meet anyone who cares and there are precious few rainbows to be seen.