[extreme_torque]

Originally Posted by digitalnirvana

But that's exactly what they are not! Musk shut off Starlink for Ukraine in the middle of the war after they refused to toe his brokering peace line with Russia.

Categorically false. He did not shut starlink off. I am all for regulation but not onesided regulation, the one true narrative.

[digitalnirvana]

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

Categorically false. He did not shut starlink off.

Just from yesterday.

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/11/04/p...age/index.html

Coincidence that it comes after this?

[Samurai]

This is a case of life imitating fiction. He is real life Tony Stark.

[extreme_torque]

Originally Posted by digitalnirvana

Just from yesterday.

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/11/04/p...age/index.html

Coincidence that it comes after this?

There are around 20,000 starlink terminals being used in Ukraine. Per the article, the 1300 which had an outage were bought by a british company and the bills were not paid. So not exactly switched off.

He also said this

[binand]

Originally Posted by Samurai

This is a case of life imitating fiction. He is real life Tony Stark.

Real life Thanos seems to be the consensus, given the way he handled the 50% downsizing.

[digitalnirvana]

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

There are around 20,000 starlink terminals being used in Ukraine. Per the article, the 1300 which had an outage were bought by a british company and the bills were not paid. So not exactly switched off.

He also said this
Attachment 2375736

Yes, agreed on both counts. Point being that the unpaid bills either by the Pentagon or the British agency (because he offered Starlink for free initially if I recall?) are becoming an issue only after Ukraine rebuffed his peace brokering.

Putting out a thinly veiled threat towards a sovereign country in public, and then backtracking - means either he is playing 4D chess diplomacy or he wears his heart on his sleeve. We'll see either way, I guess.

I'm not anti Twitter or anti Tesla or anti SpaceX just to be clear. They are innovative companies that have delivered incredible products and value.

I'm just a tad against this one individual with a God syndrome.

[Poitive]

Originally Posted by binand

... then in my opinion, he will have to dilute the Notability requirement. This would result in a lot of random accounts achieving the blue tick and consequently lowering of quality of the content coming from the blue tick accounts...

Yes, what I had in mind was to kind of re-imagine the use of ticks: from notable users to verified users (with at least a basic check of quality content). Further, to have more types of ticks/classifications.

By tweaking, I did not mean a blanket increase in blue ticks simply getting more visibility; it can be more sophisticated than that at the back-end.

It could also help a user in deciding better whom to follow and whom not to. In my case, there are hardly any blue-tick accounts I follow, and from the current non-blue tick accounts, it would help in knowing the verified from the unverified.

I have been a fairly regular Twitter user from it's early days (well over a decade) and have much enjoyed the quality content it used to have and have seen it deteriorate bit by bit. A significant part of deterioration has happened with bots and political affiliates gaining much space. Classification by means of ticks and otherwise would make it simpler to know what kind of an account one if choosing to follow.

Say, for example if political parties were given a specific type of tick, they might want to go in for such accounts, as they would increase visibility. The average user would know what kind of content to expect. User interests (those who are interested in political content) could be better matched to content providers simply by making such a classification. Such ticks could also be for other fields - say literary and arts, science, management, motivation etc. Further, it could also have the kind of use as @Turbonator talked about - companies using them as a verified account.

It may make sense to introduce changes gradually, as users are likely to accept them better that way. Social Media is very much habit based, and sudden changes make it less intuitive reducing use. The immediate change in the Blue Tick might only be the first step.

Further, my Twitter use is primarily list-based (quite bypassing many of the algorithms in use). Users are put in lists largely based on the kind of content they provide. Classification could help putting them in the right list more easily and would make for a better user experience.

So, yes, in a sense there would be dilution of the 'Blue-Tick Brand' that exists now by lowering/nearly-removing the notability requirement. It could still have a quality content filter - many quality content creators can't be seen as notable. The gain of better recognition of those creators would likely improve overall quality if well implemented; with well-implemented being the key.

The old use of Blue-Ticks could be replaced by a new type of tick over time.

[extreme_torque]

Originally Posted by digitalnirvana

Yes, agreed on both counts. Point being that the unpaid bills either by the Pentagon or the British agency (because he offered Starlink for free initially if I recall?) are becoming an issue only after Ukraine rebuffed his peace brokering.

Unpaid bills by the british company who bought them to be used in Ukraine. Starlink itself isnt "free" if you know what I mean.

I dont think he has the authority to broker any peace. All he did was put forward his thoughts on how peace could be achieved given this could go to a full scale WWIII. For obvious reasons the opinions are divided on the subject but he does not have any constitutional power anyway so its just one man's opinion.

Originally Posted by digitalnirvana

Putting out a thinly veiled threat towards a sovereign country in public, and then backtracking - means either he is playing 4D chess diplomacy or he wears his heart on his sleeve. We'll see either way, I guess.

Was it a military threat? It is a private company saying we cant keep funding free satellite internet forever in Ukraine. To put it in context he was insulted publicly by Ukrainian ambassador on the internet. He reversed his stance about funding the very next day and its status quo.

He does wears his heart on his sleeve therefore says it how he feels. He could have easily fed jargon about bandwidth and satellite internet and how its affecting the bandwidth for the paying customers or something to that effect.

I for one am glad that here is a CEO who doesnt have a politically correct corporate filter applied to his mouth to cover his sinister actions and he knows his stuff. He can explain, in gory detail, how a Tesla Motor or a battery pack works or how the latest Raptor engine in Starship, the biggest rocket ever created by mankind, works.

Originally Posted by digitalnirvana

I'm not anti Twitter or anti Tesla or anti SpaceX just to be clear. They are innovative companies that have delivered incredible products and value.

I'm just a tad against this one individual with a God syndrome.

He is indeed a bit rough around the edges for a corporate CEO but I guess that is exactly his appeal as far as I am concerned. But he can carry it off given the almost impossible companies that he has created.

[binand]

Twitter it seems is reaching out to some of the people it laid off, to return:

https://twitter.com/CaseyNewton/stat...75543420325888

[volkman10]

Musk's Twitter updates app to start charging $8 for blue checkmark.

In an update for Apple devices, the company said the feature would be open to users in certain countries who sign up to its Twitter Blue service for $7.99 (£7) per month.

Twitter's update said the changes would apply only in the UK, US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand at first.

Mr Musk himself suggested the changes would be rolled out worldwide after they were observed in the initial handful of countries.

It was not clear what would happen to those profiles which already had a blue tick - or if Twitter still planned to "verify" a user other than by charging them a subscription

Responding to one user who asked what would happen to existing verified profiles, Mr Musk said the timeline for changes to be implemented was a "couple [of] months".

Answering another question about the risk of users pretending to be notable figures, he said Twitter would "suspend the account attempting impersonation and keep the money".

Previewing other upcoming changes, Mr Musk said Twitter would soon allow users to attach long-form text to tweets, "ending [the] absurdity of notepad screenshots".

Link

[Turbanator]

Originally Posted by Turbanator

On the contrary, this might be an excellent business opportunity. To give you an example, our business is not on Twitter, if we have to get a handle that shows our business as "verified" we will surely like to subscribe.

Originally Posted by binand

so let us say a company that does not quality under the current Notability requirements is given a blue tick account after making a payment. What sort of content will it produce?

I understand you, but as a very basic, if I am a genuine small business owner looking to engage with my customers, it does help me. Of course, like any other thing, it will have its own perils. If you are not aware, in the very old days, you need to be someone with somebody's recommendation before you could get a Telephone connection in India

But if the blue tick itself losses its creditability, then

This is what Twitter said.

"Blue checkmark: Power to the people. Your account will get a blue checkmark, just like the celebrities, companies, and politicians you already follow," Twitter said.

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/twit...dtv_topstories

[dragonfire]

Nobody at Twitter said they would skip the verification process and give you the blue tick if you pay $8. You have to pay $8 per month to keep the blue tick once verified. That won't diminish the credibility of the blue tick.

[Samurai]

Notable figure is a very subjective term. Rakhee Sawant doesn't get blue tick, but Kim Kardashian does? I don't see a difference between them. Rakhee Sawant does have 10 million followers on Instagram.

Blue tick should not be any more than a verified account, like in Instagram. An account with up-to-date KYC should get a blue tick. It should be like SSL certificate issued to web sites, or DSC given to individuals. It is not given without proper verification. Any changes will trigger another verification process.

Awarding blue ticks like a title of nobility should be done away it. Twitter is a B2B business, and they should act like it. If paying customers want a blue tick as a sign of verification, give it.

[Turbanator]

OT

Originally Posted by Samurai

Rakhee Sawant doesn't get blue tick, but Kim Kardashian does? I don't see a difference between them.

San, you surely have some great eyes

[JithinR]

Originally Posted by binand

Twitter it seems is reaching out to some of the people it laid off, to return:

https://twitter.com/CaseyNewton/stat...75543420325888

Really hope those people charge enough consulting fees to make even a billionaires eyes water (maybe even a lifetime of being provided a blue tick on their profiles).

This won't go down well with his groupies though.