WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

702

(post is archived)

[–] 4 pts

Oh, I fucking hope they do because they'll implode.

[–] 4 pts

Too many people blocking their shit ads?

[–] 1 pt

I block EVERY ad I see on Twatter! And I would never pay a subscription fee for their echo chamber.

[–] 1 pt

I just block twatter. Easier than blocking ads.

I approve. And make them high, like outrageous high, so the Bluechecks get gouged to maintain their status symbol. And, on the flipside, it would probably make it a tougher play for Jack to arbitrarily censor actual humans who could sue for denial of a service they have paid for.

All corporations seek to kill themselves once they reach max leftism.

It's a natural law.

[–] 0 pt

"Roll hard left and die". There's a blog post around somewhere from 10 years ago going into detail on this exact phenomenon.

[–] 0 pt

Bad. I’d prefer to keep corralled all of the self-anointed worthless garbage that is already there.

[–] 0 pt (edited )

TAAS (Twitter as a service). Twitter is bleeding users but they still have name recognition. I could see them setting up a paid service. Big social sites such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc could get away with a subscription service. Even if a small percentage of those folks were to pay they would make substantially more than they could ever imagine from advertising. Even a free to play model would pay them more than ads. Ads usually is an afterthought when tech companies are trying to figure out how to monetize. Of all the profit models ads usually are the least profitable and can only be profitable if they scale to a high level such as Google, Facebook, etc.

Good. Then they can refund fees when they cancel accounts. If they don’t, the lawyers will chew Twitter to pieces.

They can deny refunds in user agreement. As easy as it gets.

True. But they have to have a defensible reason. Right now, they don’t give one or just plain lie.

As I said, the joo lawyers will eat Twitter alive.