News Article: Colorado Avalanche Media Coverage Part VI

[expatriatedtexan]

It's going to have ramifications in every industry with endless false news reports. Shit is going to turn into even more of a cesspool than it already is.

Maybe people shouldn't rely on twitter for news. Just sayin'....

 

[The Merchant]

Maybe people shouldn't rely on twitter for news. Just sayin'....

I mean if it's coming from trusted sources it's absolutely the quickest way to consume breaking news of sports, entertainment and the like. There's a reason all the major reporters use it as their primary platform.

 

[henchman21]

It's going to have ramifications in every industry with endless false news reports. Shit is going to turn into even more of a cesspool than it already is.

Having to pay to be verified puts up a cost for those news reports. There might be some willing to pay for some, but on the surface, this seems like it would lessen the chances of bot armies spreading things through a blue check mark since there is a legit cost to it. Right now they can just look close (and people don't pay attention) and spread for free. Each one of them won't pay $8 a month now. Maybe some will (especially those backed by gov'ts).

Maybe people shouldn't rely on twitter for news. Just sayin'....

It is a great place to hear things quickly, not the best place for accuracy. People really should read beyond headlines too.

 

[tigervixxxen]

Yeah it’s the only way news is transmitted. What’s the alternative, wait for the Avs to post something on their website lol

 

[Balthazar]

Yeah it’s the only way news is transmitted. What’s the alternative, wait for the Avs to post something on their website lol

I really like Twitter. I mean, it's nearly perfect for people like us who follow sports and want instant news and update. The fact that we can easily post tweets in forums is great too.

However, if there's one thing we've learned in the last 15 years is that no social media is irreplaceable.

 

[The Merchant]

Having to pay to be verified puts up a cost for those news reports. There might be some willing to pay for some, but on the surface, this seems like it would lessen the chances of bot armies spreading things through a blue check mark since there is a legit cost to it. Right now they can just look close (and people don't pay attention) and spread for free. Each one of them won't pay $8 a month now. Maybe some will (especially those backed by gov'ts).


It is a great place to hear things quickly, not the best place for accuracy. People really should read beyond headlines too.

That's not the problem though. The problem is they're going from a system of checks and balances to pay to play. Now anyone could potentially drop the $8 and turn around to spread lies or imitate a legitimate source. The blue check was never intended to purely be a revenue stream. It was designed to protect the legitimacy of the platform. The fear now is that it will have none.

 

[willy702]

I could totally see some nefarious gambling syndicates using it to screw with the market. Stocks probably will see the same. Will totally undermine Twitter and maybe that's for the best.

 

[Pokecheque]

If Elon buys Twitter only to run it into the ground it'll be the least surprising thing ever.

 

[henchman21]

That's not the problem though. The problem is they're going from a system of checks and balances to pay to play. Now anyone could potentially drop the $8 and turn around to spread lies or imitate a legitimate source. The blue check was never intended to purely be a revenue stream. It was designed to protect the legitimacy of the platform. The fear now is that it will have none.

The $8 is a deterrent. We've seen plenty of ways for people to be imitated without the $8 as it stands now. Lots and lots of people already get tricked by the current system. Now to do the tricking, you have to pay.

Also, there is still going to be a tag on public figures.

I don't know where this will all go in the end, but on the surface here, this looks like a skin in the game sort of move. Which instead of being able to use a platform for free to cause nefarious acts, there is a cost to it now. Some will likely pay to play and still cause issues... but I'd guess that the vast majority will end up going away to a different platform. Which may kill Twitter on its own.

 

[Avsboy]

Maybe time to invest in Mastodon?

 

[Bill Peckerskull]

The best thing to do now is to go find the verified accounts that you want legit info from and follow them.

 

[Balthazar]

The $8 is a deterrent. We've seen plenty of ways for people to be imitated without the $8 as it stands now. Lots and lots of people already get tricked by the current system. Now to do the tricking, you have to pay.

Also, there is still going to be a tag on public figures.

I don't know where this will all go in the end, but on the surface here, this looks like a skin in the game sort of move. Which instead of being able to use a platform for free to cause nefarious acts, there is a cost to it now. Some will likely pay to play and still cause issues... but I'd guess that the vast majority will end up going away to a different platform. Which may kill Twitter on its own.

One thing though: unless they accept crypto to pay for the monthly fee, fake people won't want to provide their personal informations so that alone is a pretty big deterrent. So in a way, a blue check mark will mean "verified".

 

[henchman21]

One thing though: unless they accept crypto to pay for the monthly fee, fake people won't want to provide their personal informations so that alone is a pretty big deterrent. So in a way, a blue check mark will mean "verified".

Yeah the details on that will be interesting. If you can pay to verify an anonymous account (like mine is), it loses meaning. If I have to give up personal information, pay the $8, and there are checks to stop me from changing things to impersonate somebody... then the check marks means an awful lot. Especially if you're talking about the millions of scammers where they can be pretty easily tracked at that point.

 

[The Merchant]

Ok this one got me

 

[Pokecheque]

The $8 is a deterrent. We've seen plenty of ways for people to be imitated without the $8 as it stands now. Lots and lots of people already get tricked by the current system. Now to do the tricking, you have to pay.

Also, there is still going to be a tag on public figures.

I don't know where this will all go in the end, but on the surface here, this looks like a skin in the game sort of move. Which instead of being able to use a platform for free to cause nefarious acts, there is a cost to it now. Some will likely pay to play and still cause issues... but I'd guess that the vast majority will end up going away to a different platform. Which may kill Twitter on its own.

Except I don't buy that was the motivation here at all. If it was, Elon himself wouldn't be spreading misinformation on his own platform, and he wouldn't have whittled the entire apparatus that Twitter already had in place to fight misinformation down to its barest bones (not to mention firing the executive who reportedly made the decision to finally ban Trump).

It's not a deterrent. He wants to monetize it. Plain and simple.

 

[henchman21]

Except I don't buy that was the motivation here at all. If it was, Elon himself wouldn't be spreading misinformation on his own platform, and he wouldn't have whittled the entire apparatus that Twitter already had in place to fight misinformation down to its barest bones (not to mention firing the executive who reportedly made the decision to finally ban Trump).

It's not a deterrent. He wants to monetize it. Plain and simple.

We don't (and won't) know the full motivation here. There is certainly a monetization aspect of it, Elon even stated that clearly. There is probably an aspect of it that wants to get rid of all the anonymous accounts. There is an aspect of getting away from the data broker sort of business and ad revenue. There are plenty of motivations that we likely don't know. Lots of things play a role. Drilling it down to one specific thing and saying it is only that... certainly not correct.

On the misinformation tool and the firing of the executives... you're making a tie to this that may or may not have ties to this. To make that jump with absolute certainty at this juncture is early. The firing of executives, well, Elon was always going to clean house here. He hasn't exactly made it a secret that he's disagreed with their leadership (neither has his buddy Jack). On the misinformation tools... follow the guy heading it up, Yoel Roth. He's pretty transparent about what is going on (and he is no Trump fan). In any major change, you tighten things up to those that are staying and key personnel, then you open it back up as you have staffing in place. You don't let those being let go (or maybe let go) have any control of the tool for potential misuse. This is a risk mitigation tool that is very common (used it myself many times with personnel transitions)... it just so happens trolls have been exploiting the change (and people are increasingly ready to jump on any bad news here).

https://twitter.com/yoyoel

 

[Pokecheque]

We don't (and won't) know the full motivation here. There is certainly a monetization aspect of it, Elon even stated that clearly. There is probably an aspect of it that wants to get rid of all the anonymous accounts. There is an aspect of getting away from the data broker sort of business and ad revenue. There are plenty of motivations that we likely don't know. Lots of things play a role. Drilling it down to one specific thing and saying it is only that... certainly not correct.

On the misinformation tool and the firing of the executives... you're making a tie to this that may or may not have ties to this. To make that jump with absolute certainty at this juncture is early. The firing of executives, well, Elon was always going to clean house here. He hasn't exactly made it a secret that he's disagreed with their leadership (neither has his buddy Jack). On the misinformation tools... follow the guy heading it up, Yoel Roth. He's pretty transparent about what is going on (and he is no Trump fan). In any major change, you tighten things up to those that are staying and key personnel, then you open it back up as you have staffing in place. You don't let those being let go (or maybe let go) have any control of the tool for potential misuse. This is a risk mitigation tool that is very common (used it myself many times with personnel transitions)... it just so happens trolls have been exploiting the change (and people are increasingly ready to jump on any bad news here).

https://twitter.com/yoyoel

Elon has done nothing to warrant getting the benefit of the doubt--he has used misinformation for his own purposes before, and will do so again. I don't blame anyone for being concerned about the transfer of power here.

 

[CharlesPuck]

Maybe people shouldn't rely on twitter for news. Just sayin'....

lol thats a bad take. Why is twitter, as a platform, bad for news. Sure some sources/users may be but its not the platforms fault.

 

[katfude]

lol thats a bad take. Why is twitter, as a platform, bad for news. Sure some sources/users may be but its not the platforms fault.

The platform always been hot garbage for baiting stupid people into believing stupid crap and now looks like it when be even more effective at that.

 

[expatriatedtexan]

lol thats a bad take. Why is twitter, as a platform, bad for news. Sure some sources/users may be but its not the platforms fault.

I personally don't have a problem with twitter. I was making a comment regarding folks who said it was going to be confusing moving forward with $8/month blue check marks.

That's not the problem though. The problem is they're going from a system of checks and balances to pay to play. Now anyone could potentially drop the $8 and turn around to spread lies or imitate a legitimate source. The blue check was never intended to purely be a revenue stream. It was designed to protect the legitimacy of the platform. The fear now is that it will have none.

LMFAO....the legitimacy of the platform. As if...

Look twitter is like the TV. You turn it on, there is some dude talking. What they say may or may not be bullshit. Twitter is a platform, not the truth police. It's up to the person reading the information to believe in it or not. I mean Dater had a blue check mark, are we going to pretend his information was accurate all of a sudden?

 

[The Merchant]

I personally don't have a problem with twitter. I was making a comment regarding folks who said it was going to be confusing moving forward with $8/month blue check marks.


LMFAO....the legitimacy of the platform. As if...

Look twitter is like the TV. You turn it on, there is some dude talking. What they say may or may not be bullshit. Twitter is a platform, not the truth police. It's up to the person reading the information to believe in it or not. I mean Dater had a blue check mark, are we going to pretend his information was accurate all of a sudden?

More legitimate than Facebook. All depends on who you follow and interact with

 

[expatriatedtexan]

Except I don't buy that was the motivation here at all. If it was, Elon himself wouldn't be spreading misinformation on his own platform, and he wouldn't have whittled the entire apparatus that Twitter already had in place to fight misinformation down to its barest bones (not to mention firing the executive who reportedly made the decision to finally ban Trump).

It's not a deterrent. He wants to monetize it. Plain and simple.

Elon has stated on more than a few occasions that he didn't like the ad based revenue model for twitter and has mentioned a subscription based model quite a few times. Personally, I haven't ever tweeted...if I'm being brutally honest, nobody really cares what I think.

If...(impossible really), twitter ever becomes the townhall of public debate that it's been vaunted to be, I'll subscribe in a heartbeat. But as far as I can tell, there really isn't any discussion to be had anywhere on twitter. It's just a bunch of people yelling at each other while holding both hands over their ears to ensure they don't actually hear what anybody else is saying.

I follow like two journalists, the local am news channel and a few hockey folks. I've got more ads than people tweeting in my feed. *LOL*

But seriously, here's an idea for twitter...Every tweet you make, costs a nickel. If your thought isn't worth $0.05, then don't tweet it.

 

[MacWinnon]

That's not the problem though. The problem is they're going from a system of checks and balances to pay to play. Now anyone could potentially drop the $8 and turn around to spread lies or imitate a legitimate source. The blue check was never intended to purely be a revenue stream. It was designed to protect the legitimacy of the platform. The fear now is that it will have none.

Your claim that Twitter is a system of check and balances is beyond hysterical. Adults shouldn't need some big tech company filtering what they think should be seen and what shouldn't, people should be able to decide for themselves.

 

[The Merchant]

Your claim that Twitter is a system of check and balances is beyond hysterical. Adults shouldn't need some big tech company filtering what they think should be seen and what shouldn't, people should be able to decide for themselves.

I never said twitter itself was a system of checks and balances, just the blue check concept. Which is exactly what it is and what it was intended to be. Maybe re-read the conversation being had next time if you don't want to come off as lacking any sort of reading comprehension.

 

[MacWinnon]

I never said twitter itself was a system of checks and balances, just the blue check concept. Which is exactly what it is and what it was intended to be. Maybe re-read the conversation being had next time if you don't want to come off as lacking any sort of reading comprehension.

Oh no, I complete understand the context, and your comment still sucks.