undefined | Better HN

0 pointsrsynnott2y ago0 comments

It's not just the cost; most people would, I think, be _embarrassed_ to be seen to be paying for attention.

I used to pay for a Twitter client, I now pay for a Mastodon client, I contribute to the upkeep of my local friendly Mastodon instance. In all it's in the ballpark of 8EUR/month. There's no world where I would _pay for attention on Twitter_, though.

I am somewhat surprised they didn't just charge for client API access/other bits and pieces (that is, charge the user, not the person who makes the client), and nuke the pay-for-attention/pay-for-flair feature before launch as an obviously terrible idea. I think more people would pay for that. Not many people, but more people, and it would be far less corrosive on the user experience as a whole.

0 comments

jlokier2y ago

> It's not just the cost; most people would, I think, be _embarrassed_ to be seen to be paying for attention.

I agree.

The Twitter tick had some cool when it was a mark of authenticity. Now it's a bit cringe.

The embarrassment factor might work better for Twitter if they offer an option similar to what LinkedIn does for paying users: Give the user the option to disable the blue tick on their account so other people don't know they are paying, while still having access to useful paid account features.

Like you I'd be more willing to pay a small amount for API access and useful features if I can do so quietly, without broadcasting the fact.

rsynnottOP2y ago

I think you actually can hide it now. However, at least speaking for myself, I would be embarrassed to be paying to have my posts artificially boosted, even if this fact was hidden. There's a reason that pay-to-win, particularly in multiplayer games, has always been a slightly difficult sell.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse