>Well, here is X trying to make a product you pay for.
No, this is an attempt to have it both ways. To do data collection / data brokerage and ALSO charge users for the service.
No, this is an attempt to have it both ways. To do data collection / data brokerage and ALSO charge users for the service.
Won’t that just make people get used to paying and having their data sold? Why would future companies not follow that same model?
Because some companies are happy to be profitable without having to squeeze out ever last cent possible of their customers.
When enough people are willing to pay for social media, someone will realize that there is room to build a business that doesn’t abuse its users and they will have enough money to run it.
Like pard68 though, I have no skin in the game and have also given up on social media.
I would be entirely supportive of a model where a social network (not social media) was established with modest annual fees with the condition that the usual privacy violation and targeting and engagement hacking wasn't going to happen.
But that's clearly not what this is.
(app.net)
I think you'd have to offer something entirely different that is not in "competition" in any way by not being "alike" at all, but still filling some similar needs.
I personally have never enjoyed Twitter or the kind of service it offered, so would never consider paying for anything which looked like it really. Though I guess I do donate to the Mastodon instance I have an account on, but that's more of a philosophical thing than anything to do with subscribing to a service. I barely use it.
My guess is that they’re starting with $1/year to test the waters and see who would pay. Maybe they want users to get hooked on those extra features so they can up the price.
So no, it's not having it both ways. Paying a meaningful monthly fee would be.
I mean, I guess, but it still means the product that got worse got worse, and didn’t get better.