Isn't it a bit of a strange idea to build a public townsquare where one has to "pay to play"?
Don't want to pay, point your customers to other platforms.
If Musk can refashion Twitter into something other than it was and make it profitable I am all for that. I think it's fundamentally a bad thing that a small number of commercial enterprises claim to run a "global town square" and I'd much rather see thousands of smaller entities. If I am up in arms about something it is
https://forums.gearsofwar.com/t/sunsetting-gears-of-war-foru...
I'd rather talk about games (or photography, or ...) on a dedicated forum rather than be in another toxic subreddit or toxic discord (had more than one of those get declared a hate group) or other toxic social media platform.
If I had one problem w/ the new Blue it is the pricing, not that it is "too high" or "too low" but rather like many SaaS they just seemed to pick a number out of a hat without consideration of either (a) what value the subscriber gets or (b) what does it cost to provide the service. (I not just complained about other people's pricing but I have "been there and done that" struggling to set prices.)
Specifically, The New York Times has had a hissy fit about refusing to pay $8 a month which is a bit ridiculous not because it is a high number or a non-zero number but rather in that so far as the NYT gets some value out of participating in Twitter is is more like $8000 a month or $80,000 a month and the $8 has no connection to reality for them.
There are numerous ways that the NYT's own subscription and paywall service is problematic (newsmax is free, NYT's paywall is a decision to impoverish the "town square", journalists are being judged on the clickbaitability of their stories, the real money-maker at the Times today is the editorial page where people like David Brooks can talk about the way things are "spozed" to be out of their ass and not have to do any real journalism that cost money or ruffle feathers... or just trying cancelling your NYT subscription for an education in dark patterns, then the NYT had the nerve to run an expose on dark patterns...) The least you can do to avoid challenges to your own legitimacy is not challenge the legitimacy of others.
The NYT might have a better case that it is providing value to Twitter for providing content and giving people something to have mindless, knee-jerk discussions about which would point to a model where maybe Twitter should try to make money off people reading Twitter as opposed to posting to Twitter but there too there is the split between people and organizations that are contributing content vs those who are just promoting themselves (if I were going to make a Twitter account again it would only be to spam links.)