[hcurtiss]

You think they’re making money on $1 per account? Processing fees will eat most of that. It seems likely to me they’re doing it to improve the user experience, which if that recruits more users will be worth much more to them than the 10,000 bots each paying $1/year.

[dragontamer]

Its easier to make money from 100 users willing to pay $10,000 each, aka $1 million/year in revenue, than to recruit 1,000,000 individual users.

Bonus points: bots want the blue-checkmark to look more legitimate, so bots are also more likely to pay $8/month for the blue checkmark. The actual revenue is going to be far higher in practice when you consider that any bot-farm / astroturf will obviously have some blue-checkmarks + an army of normies in some kind of mix.

[hcurtiss]

Somebody with some actual experience/authority on the subject:

https://x.com/troyhunt/status/1714529503823953990?s=46

[dragontamer]

I think you're avoiding the crux of the issue.

Elon isn't trying to solve the bot-problem per se, but is instead trying to solve Twitter's revenue problem.

You are basically arguing that Twitter needs to solve the bot problem to get all of its users back. That's... not really a direct solution or simple way to raise revenue. Its not very clear if say bots were cleaned up, that anyone would come back (or advertisers would spend more).

----------

On the other hand, if this is just a tacit acknowledgement that $1/year is the assumed "cost of doing botting", then the solution is for botters to pay $10,000/year for 10,000 accounts. This provides the *direct* answer to the revenue problem.

[hcurtiss]

Elon is solving a revenue problem with $1/user/year? That will assuredly cost some real users too? Please. You have this exactly backwards.

[dragontamer]

On the contrary.

Twitter's survival is entirely dependent on becoming profitable. Entirely. Revenue (and eventually, profits), is and should be, the primary goal.

----------

Without a doubt, this is "supposed to increase revenue".

From my perspective: you are seemingly arguing that this will increase revenue by somehow improving the Twitter experience and growing the userbase. Unless... you somehow don't think revenue is an important question at all?

[hcurtiss]

Yes, they have said explicitly they are working to improve the user experience. Likewise, they are working to assure their advertisers that the numbers they are showing them are real users. This has been a known issue since well before Musk's acquisition.

My point is that the $1/user is not solving a revenue problem by raising $1 times 10,000 bots, as you claim. It's designed to eliminate bots so that they recruit real users that advertisers value, and which also improves the user experience.

Musk hatred consumes too many.

[throwaway4aday]

you honestly think they make less than $1 in ad revenue per account per year where this calculation would make any sense?

[dragontamer]

Do you think bot accounts won't make ad-revenue?

A MAU is a MAU, whether its a bot or not.

[throwaway4aday]

if it's identified as a bot then it won't. This change in policy seems to be a move away from that kind of revenue generation. If you're happy with MAU from bots then why bother to identify them?

[dragontamer]

> if it's identified as a bot then it won't

If Twitter could identify bots, then they wouldn't have this problem at all.

This whole issue exists because they can't identify bots to any degree of accuracy. So now they're cedeing the situation and simply trying to monetize it.

[throwaway4aday]

no idea where you're getting that idea from but it's wrong, that is not how you generate revenue from bot accounts if that was the goal