But it's not a higher barrier to entry – you can read and respond freely. It's a higher barrier to having a good experience, which I can't think of many successful examples of to be honest.
You can already filter out non-verified mentions and replies. Presumably that's not going away, and will be used by far more people after this change. It very much is a barrier to entry.
But the verified mention is no longer a verified mention. It’s a paid mention.
And the people most likely to pay to ensure that their responses are seen broadly are narcissists and people who want to sell you stuff like their latest get rich quick scheme, newsletter
Subscription, etc.
Actual verified users will dwindle in comparisons and the value of filtering out non “verified” responses will plummet.
Sure, but I hope as mainly a reader of Twitter this change comes along with a box I can check that says 'only show Tweets from people I follow and those who are verified'. Overnight, most of my bot issues are fixed. And, any people I don't want to hear from again are easily blocked.
Yup. I'm gonna keep drumming this up: most markets today are supplier-driven. The "barrier to having a good experience" gets higher, and the experience gets worse, and there's shit all you can do about it, because you're only able to choose out of what's on the market, and the market isn't serving lower barrier / better experience options it did a month, year or decade ago.
> and the market isn't serving lower barrier / better experience options it did a month, year or decade ago.
That's irrelevant, and very often false. But the options offered by the market at any given time are generally better at higher price points, which is, oddly, exactly what the commenter upthread was outraged by.
> It's a higher barrier to having a good experience, which I can't think of many successful examples of to be honest.
The way I read the poster is that they think being asked to pay more will create worse experience, which is implied to be stupid. Except it isn't, it's literally what's happening in every market all the time. Getting people to pay more for worse product is entirely normal, and the way it usually works is by removing the option to keep paying the same amount for the product they currently enjoy.
>> It's a higher barrier to having a good experience, which I can't think of many successful examples of to be honest.
> The way I read the poster is that they think being asked to pay more will create worse experience
That is something they say, but the quote you pulled isn't related to it. You were looking for this one:
>> At best this will reduce conversation quality on Twitter
But they never bother to justify that.
> which is implied to be stupid.
The quote you pulled is stupid. Nothing is more common than successful examples of placing a higher barrier in front of the good experience than there is in front of the bad experience.
I never justified it because that quote is nowhere in my comment.
Regardless, it’s not as “stupid” as you claim. How many social networks have added a premium tier for non commercial users, while degrading the quality of the free tier and been successful?
Closest I can think of are dating apps, which have a unique driver behind them that Twitter doesn’t have.
