Brands that don’t buy enough Twitter ads will lose verification
www.theverge.com
Hard to not see this as a threat, right?

Starting August 7th, advertisers that haven’t reached certain spending thresholds will lose their official brand account verification. According to emails obtained by the WSJ, brands need to have spent at least $1,000 on ads within the prior 30 days or $6,000 in the previous 180 days to retain the gold checkmark identifying that the account belongs to a verified brand.

…

Threatening to remove verified checkmarks is a risky move given how many ‘Twitter alternative’ services like Threads and Bluesky are cropping up and how willing consumers appear to be to jump ship, with Threads rocketing to 100 million registrations in just five days. That said, it’s not like other efforts to drum up some additional cash, like increasing API pricing, have gone down especially well, either. It’s a bold strategy, Cotton — let’s see if it pays off for him.

  • @LazylazycatEnglish
    31•1 year ago

    Surely there are easier ways to destroy it without making himself look really, really dumb.

    I don’t think it’s they deep, I think he’s just quite stupid.

      • @TwilightVulpineEnglish
        22•1 year ago

        Hanlon’s Razor shouldn’t apply to businessmen because acting machiavellian and feigning ignorance is in their interest. But he has so thoroughly ruined his “real life Iron Man” reputation, that I doubt that this is some master plan. Even his other companies have lost value due to how bad he is fumbling this.

        • @[email protected]English
          6•1 year ago

          Hanlon’s razor is just a bad rule. Applying it would, for instance, let the entire Trump administration off the hook for the way they sabotaged everything they were in charge of. Were incompetent? Mostly, yes. But they were also malicious.

          • @TwilightVulpineEnglish
            4•1 year ago

            Yeah, Hanlon’s Razor is hardly a rule. But it can help to deal with regular people in your day to day life, rather than sinking into paranoia that everyone is out to get you.

            However if we are talking about business and politicians, it’s pretty much their job to get one over people. All the profits and power that they can get is what they squeeze out of you.

            And even when it comes to peers, that doesn’t account for prejudice. Someone who otherwise might not knowingly do anything bad to their neighbors might act differently to groups they hate.

    • mrbubblesort
      6•1 year ago

      Remember back in 2015 ~ 16 when we thought Trump was playing 4d chess, but it turned out he was really actually that dumb all along? It’s the same with Musk. We want to believe that someone who’s had so much success has a secret plan or something, but sometimes they really are just stupid chucklefucks

      • keegomatic
        13•1 year ago

        I’m not saying this to be an asshole, because I’m happy that you got to the right conclusion eventually, but I have to clarify for history’s sake: if you thought Trump was playing 4D chess in 2015-2016 then you were being duped. Most of us understood what he was from the get-go. Claims of 4D chess have always been stupid.

        Again, I’m happy that you figured it out. Everyone makes mistakes. But “we” didn’t think he was playing 4D chess. The hypothesis about Musk/Twitter above is hardly the same.

        • mrbubblesort
          7•1 year ago

          Pleased don’t lump me in with those people, I was only using “we” in the figurative sense. I’ve been anti-trump longer than many people on this site have been alive